Elena Psyllou

General
Aviation
Safety

Trained with Paper Maps,

Flying with Digital Maps

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2019.2930272

Date of publication: 30 August 2019

74 0278-0097/19©2019IEEE IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE ∕ SEPTEMBER 2019

A
viation is often seen as an innovative software applications on smartphones for commut-
sector eager to seek technological ing. Similar to pilots, commuters are not trained in
solutions. It is often assumed that the use of these applications, and local transport
aircraft cockpits have panels with authorities do not generally certify the applications:
electronic displays and many but- nevertheless, some commuters rely on them to com-
tons, some labeled “auto.” While plete their journeys.
this might be the case for com-
mercial aviation (Figure 1), the vast majority of non- What is General Aviation?
commercial civil aircraft cockpits look nothing like GA is defined as all civilian flights that are not commer-
these modern cockpits. Non-commercial civil aircraft, cial. GA comprise 90% of the world’s civilian aircraft
known as general aviation (GA), typically have cockpits [1]. Due to the diversity of the sector, this article focus-
that mainly consist of analog instruments that show es on private and recreational flights using fixed-wing
the heading of the aircraft, the altitude, and the air single-engine aircraft, including microlight/ultralight,
speed (Figure 2). While flying, the pilots make calcula-
tions using a compass and an aviation calculator. Due
to the slow entry rate of new, glass-cockpit aircraft [1],
the composition of the GA aircraft fleet is not going to
change any time soon.
While such conventional cockpit designs might seem
the norm in GA, emerging technologies, such as space-
based technologies, Global Positioning Systems (GPS),
and portable computers, commonly known as tablets,
are increasingly making their appearance in GA. With
limited statistics on the matter, a recent demographic
study run in Canada [2], showed that four in ten GA
pilots used at least one space-based navigation device
and/or tablet. It can be argued, however, that more GA
pilots use such technologies worldwide. Despite the
widespread use of space-based and portable technolo-
gies and their potential benefits, surprisingly they are
not part of the official training for pilots. On the con-
trary, pilots integrate these technologies into their flight
by learning how to use them on their own. This
approach can be time-consuming and relies on the
pilots to identify the most adequate and safe ways to
embed these technologies into their flights. Some of
these methods are not certified by the regulatory avia-
tion authorities.
The impacts of the emergence of modern technol-
ogies on the complex socio-technical system of avia-
tion are reviewed in this article. The main emerging
technologies in GA are presented, and the safety
implications are discussed of using such emerging
technologies by an audience, i.e., pilots, who were
trained on conventional paper maps, compasses,
rulers, and pens. It is important to recognize that
this situation of using a technology without training
not only exists in aviation, but in our daily lives as
well. A typical example is the use of route planning FIGURE 1. The cockpit of a commercial aircraft.

SEPTEMBER 2019 ∕ IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE 75


Pilots trained with conventional
(analog) tools, are untrained in the
use of new (digital) technologies,
which are not generally certified by
aviation authorities.
rotorcraft, or glider. Thus, this discussion excludes
flights made for business. In Europe, the GA fleet pri-
marily features fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters; how-
ever, gliders and microlights are also popular [3] due to
the continuous efforts to simplify regulations for GA at
the pan-European level, resulting in the reduction of
costs of training, ownership, and maintenance of
microlight aircraft.
GA pilots could be described as occasional flyers
(pilots that fly as little as 30 hours per year) as they
typically fly in good weather conditions and have
FIGURE 2. Analog instrument cockpit of a general aviation
aircraft.
76 IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE
relatively fewer flying hours compared to commercial
aviation pilots. In places with severe weather in winter,
such as Norway and Canada, pilots are less likely to
fly in winter and thus, they are inactive for this period
of time; they start flying in spring when daylight hours
are longer, temperatures are higher, and landscapes
are less covered in snow. As it is a recreational activi-
ty, GA pilots often fly on the weekends unless they use
their aircraft as they would a private car, a concept
that is more typical in North America than in other
countries [4]. Furthermore, GA pilots are cost-con-
scious, and so expensive, non-mandatory technolo-
gies tend to be avoided.
Technologies for Planning and Navigation
For a flight to safely reach its destination, the details of
the flight route are planned ahead to navigate along the
route and estimate fuel consumption. In flight planning,
pilots are meant to select distinctive landmarks across
the route, estimate expected arrival times, and make
corrections of the heading and altitude based on fore-
casted weather reports. In addition, pilots determine
the radio communication that they will need to estab-
lish in-flight and, among other tasks, study the depart-
ing and arrival runway features. This flight planning
can take a few hours, depending on the flight charac-
teristics, e.g., length of flight, and the pilot’s experi-
ence, e.g., if it is the first flight to the planned
destination. GA pilots are trained to use paper charts,
compasses, and calculators to complete flight plan
sheets (see p. 74) and thus, as far as training is con-
cerned, satellites and software applications are
excluded. Using these resources, once pilots are up in
the air, the pilots monitor their aircraft’s position by
observing the analog instruments of air speed and
heading, the distance and the time travelled, and the
selected landmarks.
Ongoing technological advancements in down-
stream space technologies, i.e., Global Navigation
Satellite Systems (GNSS) and portable computers,
have changed the scene in GA. In the 2000s, the use
of Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers marked
the beginning of space-based navigation for GA [5].
The evolution of portable computers and software
development led to the emergence of flight planning
software applications in tablets that shrink all the
information printed on a paper into a small multi-
functional device; a tablet with a touch display.
When connected to the Internet, the software appli-
cations can project the position of the aircraft on the
moving map using the GNSS receiver installed in the
tablet. Further advancements in the connectivity of
devices enable software applications to synchronize
w it h a n ex ter na l G N S S receiver i mprov i ng t he
∕ SEPTEMBER 2019
position measurements. Such developments en­­
hance the geographical awareness of the pilots and
subsequently, they reduce incidents of loss of situa-
tion awareness.
In contrast to certified positioning technologies,
tablets and software applications can be described
as off-the-shelf technologies only because these
technologies have not benefited from the same
exhaustive quality assurance as other avionic sys-
tems. However, the substantially reduced costs of
owning a multi-purpose tablet coupled with the ease
of flight planning they provide has encouraged pilots
to use them. Due to cost-sensitivity of GA pilots,
stakeholders in the United Kingdom are currently
working on developing a low-cost electronic technol-
ogy that makes the aircraft visible to other air traffic
and calculates the aircraft’s position using satellites
[6]. If indeed this is the future, then more informa-
tion will be presented on the graphic map on the
tablet display. This technology mimics the concept
of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast
(ADS-B) that will be mandatory for use by aircraft
operating in certain controlled airspace areas by
2020 [7]. The costs of installing such a device initiat-
ed discussions among the GA community, particular-
ly in Europe with respect to the cost-benefit ratio for
the GA pilots who rarely use air traffic services [8],
[9]. Similar technologies that share information with
nearby aircraft have already been developed specifi-
cally for gliders to improve their traffic awareness. A
prerequisite, however, was that all gliders flying in
the area be equipped with the device. While not
being mandatory, the gliding community positively
responded to this call.
Despite their increased use, space-based navigation
and software applications are meant to assist GA pilots
but not to be their primary navigation aids. These tech-
nologies are also excluded from the pilots’ training.
Given efforts in developing technologies that utilize sat-
ellites and portable computers, it is likely that electronic
displays and satellites will be soon used across GA,
highlighting the need to safely integrate such new tech-
nologies into the cockpit.
Enduring Challenges
The changes in flight planning and navigation can cause
safety issues that originate from failures of assistive
technologies, depending on the manner in which the
technologies are used.
Technological Failures
Failures of such space-based navigation devices and
software applications can originate from a variety of
sources: a weak Internet connection, a weak satellite
SEPTEMBER 2019 ∕ IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE
Changes in flight planning and
navigation can cause safety issues
that originate from failures of
assistive technologies.
signal, and a technical failure of the tablet’s components,
programs, and the software application itself. The tablet
can run out of battery power, an ongoing challenge for
electronic devices. Given that GA pilots can often fly for
more than an hour, their devices can run out of battery
during the return flight to their home airfield or during
cross-country flights, and thus pilots need to plan
ahead and consider using alternative resources. Should
such a technological failure occur, the question remains
as to whether the pilot can successfully change tools in
flight to continue the flight. Other potential issues can
be batteries that could fail in various weather condi-
tions including low temperatures, displays that can
always freeze, or urgent software updates that should
have been done pre-flight that prevent the technology
from working in-flight.
Internet connection and connection with satellites
varies up in the sky and the pilot needs to systemati-
cally monitor the quality of the connection in order to
read real time information instead of delayed informa-
tion, that is, if the tablet supports Internet reception
and is not limited to a wireless connection. The win-
dow display of the aircraft and the location of the
GNSS receiver can further reduce the quality of the
connection with satellites. Considering that tablets are
often also used in daily life and perhaps by other
users, e.g., other household members, settings chang-
es can stay unnoticed. Finally, there is always the risk
of signal interference, and of viruses or bugs that can
result in erroneous measurements, again with no or
late notice.
Aging Population and Ergonomics
The GA population is aging. The age of GA pilots rang-
es from 18 to 90 years of age, with the average age
of pilots being 50 and 60 in the United Kingdom and
Canada, respectively [2], [9]. As physical and cogni-
tive performance naturally degrades with age [10],
touch screens and software applications require
actions that an older individual might find too
demanding, e.g., zooming in on the map, clicking
buttons, and navigating across software application,
to easily use.
77
 Understanding How Satellites and Software
Applications Operate
Satellites, tablets, and software applications can be
described as relatively recent technological develop-
ments and are not necessarily part of high school edu-
cation. Do GA pilots know how satellites operate? Do
they understand that a tablet can turn off at any time
or that an Internet connection can be lost when in
flight? These concerns not only arise for older GA
pilots, but for younger pilots as well. Technologies
evolve rapidly and even younger people might fail to
follow developments. A willingness to learn about
­science and engineering, bearing in mind that the
background of GA pilots varies from engineering to
finance, from pilot to pilot. To combat this, technolo-
gies often feature in seminars run by flying clubs and
pilot associations and in pilots’ magazines, in an
attempt to inform the GA population rather than to
teach them how to use the technologies. In the end it
is still up to the individual pilot to take an interest and
use his/her initiative.
Pilots relying on Global Navigation
Satellite Systems could find
themselves flying in conditions
beyond their capabilities.
Mounting the Tablet on the Cockpit Panel
Traditionally, paper aeronautical charts are placed flat
on the knees of the pilots along with all the other
paper documents the pilots carry on-board. From dis-
cussions with pilots,1 the tablet is often placed on the
knee, probably as a natural reaction to the replace-
ment of the paper charts, or it is mounted on the top
of the cockpit panel. The location of the tablet is really
a preference of the pilot. If the pilot needs to touch the
screen during the flight the tablet will be placed at a
distance where the pilot will be able to do so. In addi-
tion, in cases where the software application uses the
GNSS receiver of the tablet for positioning, the tablets
need to be placed at a position that enhances the per-
formance of the receiver, e.g., close to the window.
Similar performance issues apply for the external
GNSS receivers, as the receiver should be within reach
of the pilot who either reads or touches it. It is worth
1
Interviews: N = 27 general aviation pilots flying in Finland, Norway and the
United Kingdom in 2015.
78 IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE
noting that there are no best practices as to where to
mount the tablet on a panel that was designed well
before tablets appeared.
Engagement of the Pilot with the Tablet: Digital
Information and Presentation
The presentation of information on a tablet is not at all
standardized. Color pallets vary among software appli-
cations, as does the size and font of letters. These varia-
tions degrade pilot performance [11], [12]. Considering
GA demographics, older pilots are likely to be long-
sighted affecting their ability to read. Understanding the
scale of the map is again another issue, as the features
presented change perspective as the user zooms in and
out. In a static manner, the presentation of icons affects
the engagement of the user with the device. In a simula-
tion study with general aviation pilots [13], pilots
responded faster when icons were associated with the
cause of the failure than when they were associated
with a related aircraft indicator. Furthermore, studies of
which weather information pilots are more likely to
review indicated that pilots are not necessarily interest-
ed in all of the weather parameters, implying the impor-
tance of prioritizing presentation of weather information
to pilots [14].
Misperception that the Tablet is a High
Level Automated Technology
Despite the increased amount of information, a tablet
only shows a portion of the available aeronautical infor-
mation, in particular, the pilot’s aircraft position, air-
space details, and the terrain. It does not show nearby
traffic nor does it make decisions for the pilot. Pilots
search for information, e.g., weather information, and
look out the window to become aware of traffic. As
GNSS performance cannot yet be completely precise
and accurate to the required level for such a safety criti-
cal activity, pilots still need to navigate visually. Until
further developments are made, these technologies can
only be used as information providers and only for cer-
tain aspects, e.g., terrain and airspace features and
weather information.
Reliance on the Technologies
Studies of pilot decision making when a GNSS was
available indicated that pilots could rely on the GNSS
and find themselves flying in conditions beyond their
capabilities, including navigating in adverse weather
conditions [15]. Presenting this spatial information on a
graphic display with a moving map, i.e., on a tablet, the
pilots are overwhelmed with information. The aircraft’s
position is visually co-presented with respect to the
nearby airspace and the terrain. In the future, with addi-
tions of graphic information for weather and nearby
∕ SEPTEMBER 2019
traffic, the pilots will have little reasons to not look at
the electronic display. Interviews with European GA
pilots revealed that they stare at the tablet screen due to
the improved access to information and ease of use of
the application, something that can potentially degrade
the pilot’s ability to visually detect nearby traffic [5].
Due to improved Internet connectivity in-flight,
pilots seek information about weather, airspace, and
airports in flight. They also make flight route changes
in flight, according to the GA pilot interviews [16]. This
situation raises concerns as to whether the timely
information retrieval with tablets will make pilots less
likely to engage in detailed flight planning and to con-
sider risks in advance. Furthermore, tablets and their
software applications have significantly reduced the
time needed for planning, from a few hours to a few
minutes, because all calculations, including the air-
craft’s headings, are automatically calculated by the
computer, reducing the computational tasks required
from the pilot. Timewise, pilots can now select their
flight route just before takeoff, and can also modify
their selected route given weather updates. This raises
another question regarding the ability of foreseeing
critical aspects of the flight when calculations are
made by the computer.
The reliance on these technologies indicated a
change in the manner by which pilots identify the air-
craft’s position in that pilots look for coordinates rath-
er than landmarks. As a consequence, pilots use fewer
landmarks in their flight route selection and thus,
pilots select fewer reporting points that serve as moni-
toring indicators of the flight. In other words, they fly
the planned track at the planned speed. The trouble is
that this flight planning change discourages pilots from
cross-referencing their position with terrain features,
as pilots no longer have these checkpoints available.
Hence, pilots drag themselves into situations where
they look at the tablet to confirm they are on track.
This change in navigation coupled with changes in
flight planning, and the implications for safe flying
intensify the need to review current planning and navi-
gation procedures that have previously remained
unchanged for decades.
Finally, another important aspect of using such
devices is the perceived time spent staring and using
the device. A study of the use of smartphones in
daily life by the public indicated that individuals
misperceived the time they used the smartphone com-
pared to objective measurements [17]. It is reasonable
to assume that GA pilots are also vulnerable in misper-
ceiving the time they look at the tablet. Their lack of
attention could result in misidentifying their position.
For example, a pilot might believe that he/she looked at
the tablet for a couple of minutes, while he/she was
SEPTEMBER 2019 ∕ IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE
staring at the display longer, causing the pilot to incor-
rectly identify the landmark.
Safety Concerns
In flight, relying on a technology that produces inaccu-
rate results can result in unsafe situations with the most
severe example being a mid-air collision. In busy air-
spaces, such as those in Europe over major cities, traffic
density can be high meaning that pilots need to main-
tain their awareness of nearby aircraft. GA aircraft are
rarely equipped with a traffic collision avoidance sys-
tem, known as TCAS in commercial aviation, and thus,
the eyes of the GA pilots remain the only traffic aware-
ness system on board. Hence, a tablet that is stared at
for a long time can degrade pilots’ traffic awareness,
increasing the likelihood of an event where the pilot
Emerging technologies introduced
to general aviation should be
verified for their operational and
safety benefits.
does not see the nearby air traffic and plan accord-
ingly. In light of technologies that present this tra ffic
information, as mentioned earlier, more informa-
tion is centralized on the electronic display, highlight-
ing the issues of changes in planning and navigation for
the pilots.
Another situation caused by reliance on these tech-
nologies can be seen in GA aircraft flying near com-
mercial airports. A miscalculation of an aircraft’s
position cause the GA aircraft to be located inside the
airspace serving an airport’s commercial flights, for
which permission to enter is needed. Such an incident
will result in diversion of airport traffic in order to
ensure safe separation between the infringing aircraft
and commercial traffic.
According to the aviation authorities in the United
Kingdom, such an incident can mean delays for up to
30 airlines and 5000 passengers and result in £50 000
worth of wasted fuel [18]. In order to avoid such
impacts, GA pilots need to be competent and detect
errors that could result in such incidents.
Changing World Views
GA is indeed in a transitional phase with emerging tech-
nologies making their appearance in the cockpit primari-
ly in the form of satellite-based technologies and
79
 software applications installed on portable electronic
displays. Emerging technologies are embedded into the
operations of such a safety critical industry without train-
ing and with some technologies, e.g., tablets, not being
certified to be used in aviation in a similar manner as
certified avionic systems. In addition, emerging technol-
ogies, and any technology introduced into GA, should be
verified for their operational and safety benefits and
should be thoroughly examined with the engagement of
the pilot to monitor changes in flying performance. Such
assessment will not only improve the design of the tech-
nologies, but it will also inform policy makers with
respect to actions needed to ensure the safe use of
these technologies, including training schemes, mini-
mum performance requirements and standards.
It is the time to review the context
in which new technologies are
used, leading to revisions of flight
rules accordingly.
As stated in [19], before any deployment, technolo-
gies should demonstrate, through carefully monitoring
trials on test flights, that the system will not degrade
safety. Of course, there is also the question of how to
evaluate such evolving technologies that are based on
algorithms that the human mind struggles to conceive,
but all these tests need to be completed in a timely
and reliable manner keeping the costs as low as possi-
ble. As explained earlier, GA pilots seek affordable
technologies and thus, the challenge is to determine
the meeting point between cost-effective and high-per-
formance technologies that are safely integrated into
the conventional GA aircraft. At present, multi-purpose
devices, i.e., tablets, and subscriptions to software
applications have been widely accepted by GA pilots,
and this uptake of affordable off-the-shelf technologies
can only be seen as an action to reduce the costs
while making use of the latest technologies that seem
to improve pilots’ flight experience. Hence, it is of vital
importance to ensure that cost-effective, high-perfor-
mance technologies are safely integrated into conven-
tional GA aircraft.
In the scenario where the technologies fail, e.g., tab-
lets or GNSS, there is a concern of how the competency
of the pilots will be sustained after such a failure. By
law, pilots must carry paper charts. Such regulations
only allow that alternative navigational materials could
80 IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE
be available, but not the readiness of the pilot to switch
to an alternative mechanism. On the other hand, in the
scenario where technologies operate as intended, there
is an issue of the ability of the pilots to maintain con-
trol of the aircraft while relying on the technologies.
The availability of information in flight has changed the
decisions made in flight leading to low pilot situation
awareness [20]. In light of these issues, perhaps it is the
time to review the context in which the technologies
are used, leading to revisions of flight rules accordingly.
The role of policies and regulations on safe systems
in a technology- and data-driven society is an ongoing
topic discussed not only in aviation, but in other fast-
growing industries that are based on new technologies
and data. Adapting regulations for the modern era is
essential, but actions that do not necessarily involve
rule-making can also be beneficial. For example, infor-
mation events, such as seminars and magazines, can
inform the GA community (e.g., pilots and flight instruc-
tors), with emphasis on what the emerging technologies
are, how they work, and how they can be used in opera-
tions. We assume that the public knows how to use a
tablet; however, this can be a biased assumption con-
sidering rapid technological evolution. The challenge is
to communicate science to a diverse audience, i.e., the
average GA population, which is of older age, has lower
expected overall familiarity with such devices, and low
understanding of the fundamental concepts the emerg-
ing technologies are based on.
Engaging with pilots who already have their licences can
be a challenge as only a portion of pilots are members of a
collective body, such as a flying club. Incentives are need-
ed to encourage pilots to participate in seminars. Perhaps
action coming from the authorities can accelerate the
knowledge transfer. For instance, upon renewal of licences,
pilots should be required to review relevant emerging tech-
nologies. For student pilots, the content of the curriculum
could be expanded and include the topic of new technolo-
gies. These changes should also be reflected in the assess-
ment for the licence. Fundamentally, this is a change that
needs to come from the authorities.
Safety Critical Sector
Aviation is a safety critical sector, with public safety at
stake for both those in the air and those on the ground.
What happens in the air is not only of concern to the
people flying, but those on the ground as well. New
technologies should enhance safety and thus, they need
to demonstrate that they can achieve safety. GA is cur-
rently is a transition period with portable electronic dis-
plays, i.e., tablets, software applications, and satellites
all being introduced into the conventional analog air-
craft. With no formal training on how to use newer tech-
nology tools, pilots find themselves learning from
∕ SEPTEMBER 2019
experience. Since technologies can fail, with the sim-
plest example of a tablet running low in battery on a
two-hour flight, pilots need to be prepared to continue
their flight without jeopardizing their own and the public
safety. In this digital era, pilots need to stay informed of
the emerging technologies and be trained accordingly
so that new technologies improve their flying experienc-
es without putting public safety at risk.
Author Information
Elena Psyllou is with Lloyd’s Register Foundation Trans-
port Risk Management Centre, Centre for Transport
Studies, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ,
U.K. Email: elena.psyllou11@imperial.ac.uk.
References
[1] General Aviation Manufacturers Association, “2017 Annual
Report,” GAMA, 2018.
[2] C. Keith, “Report of the COPA 2017 Membership Survey,”
Canadian Owners and Pilots Assoc., Ottawa, Ont., Canada,
2017.
[3] Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom, “UK registered aircraft
by class and weight group, multi-year 1985-2016,” Aircraft Register
iStatistics, 2016; https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/Aircraft-
and-airworthiness/Datasets/Aircraft-register-statistics/
[4] K. Shetty and J. Hansman, “Current and historical trends in gen-
eral aviation in the United States,” S.M. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge,
MA, Rep. ICAT-2012-6, 2012.
[5] E. Psyllou, A. Majumdar, and W. Ochieng, “A review of navigation
involving general aviation pilots flying under visual flight rules,” J.
Navigation, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1130-1142, 2018.
[6] Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom. Electronic Conspicu-
ity Devices. Nov. 4, 2019; https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/
Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Electronic-Conspicuity-devices/
[7] Federal Aviation Administration, Automatic Dependent Sur-
veillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), 2019; https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/
programs/adsb/
[8] SESAR, Implementation status of ADS-B in Europe, 2018;
https://www.sesardeploymentmanager.eu/premails/implementation-
status-of-ads-b-in-europe/
[9] Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom, “Flight crew statistics by
age and sex: Pilot licence holders by age and sex 2012,” Dec. 12,
2015; https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/Approved-persons-
and-organisations/Datasets/Licence-holders-by-age-and-sex/.
[10] P. Tsang, “Reappraisal of aging and pilot performance,” Int. J.
Aviation Psychology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 193–212, 1992.
[11] VOLPE Centre, “Pilot identification of symbols and an explora-
tion of symbol design issues for electronic displays of aeronauti-
cal charting information,” National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA, vol. DOT/FAA/AR-07/37, 2007.
[12] VOLPE Centre, “Utility and recognition of lines and linear
­patterns on electronic displays depicting aeronautical charting
information,” National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA, vol. DOT/FAA/AR-09/01, 2009.
[13] M. Wiggins et al., “Using iconic cues to recover from fixation on
tablet devices in the cockpit,” presented at the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 52th Annual Meeting, 2014.
[14] K. Pauley and D. O’Hare, “Measuring risk tolerance in general
aviation pilots,” in Proc. 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Fac-
tors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2006 (San Francisco, CA),
Oct. 16-20, 2006, pp. 2350–2353.
[15] M. Wiggins, “Perceived GPS use and weather-related decision
strategies among pilots,” Int. J. Aviation Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3,
pp. 249–264, 2007.
[16] E. Psyllou, A. Majumdar, and W. Ochieng, “Planning of general
aviation pilots using interviews,” Cham, pp. 48–57, 2018.
[17] T. Deng et al., “Measuring smartphone usage and task switch-
ing with log tracking and self-reports,” Mobile Media & Communica-
tion, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–23, 2019.
[18] NATS, “Why airspace infringements have the potential to
impact all of us,” AOPA, 2018.
[19] J. Borenstein, J. Herkert, and K. Miller, “Self-driving cars: Ethical
responsibilities of design engineers,” IEEE Technology & Society
Mag., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 67–75, 2017.
[20] M. Wiggins, “Perceived GPS use and weather-related decision
strategies among pilots,” Int. J. Aviation Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3,
pp. 249–264, 2007.


Being Human in this Technical World

IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century 2020
Anna University, Chennai, India
23–26 July 2020

As the world becomes increasingly cyber, the founder of cybernetics and of information ethics, Norbert Wiener, becomes
more increasingly relevant. Following successful conferences in Boston and Melbourne, the third IEEE Conference on
Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century will be held at Anna University, Chennai, India, July 23-26, 2020. Wiener spent many
months in India in the 1950s, and the conference will look at the current state of his multidisciplinary technologies, the
information ethics field which he pioneered, and his links to India. The conference will be of significance to technologists,
ethicists, academics, cyber industry practitioners, and historians of technology, among others.

Call for papers and other information can be found at: http://21stcenturywiener.org/.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2019.2937243

SEPTEMBER 2019 ∕ IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE 81