The Next Generation Cockpit: Requirements of Fighter Pilots in a

Highly Automated Environment

Maximilian Weigand and Sarah Embacher

ESG Elektroniksystem & Logistik GmbH, Livry-Gargan Str. 6, Fürstenfeldbruck, Germany

Keywords: Automation, Cockpit Interface, Fighter Pilot, Next Generation Fighter, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Risks.

Abstract: This study aims to explore the opinions of fighter pilots regarding past, current, and future Human-Machine-

Interfaces. The first motivation of this study is to identify aspects of different interfaces within a fighter

cockpit and the collaboration between unmanned platforms influencing the perceived performance of pilots.

A second motivation is to create a list of requirements for future interface functionalities to narrow down the

vast range of possible State-of-the-Art inventions to a few which, according to pilots, are of particularly good

or bad use. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed. For the analysis, a coding method was

applied based on the ‘Mayring’-technique. Following this process, the raw data in form of interview

transcripts were cleaned first and, subsequently, codes were created. From these codes, categories were

defined and, on basis of the frequency of occurrence, main categories were filtered out. The main categories

of this study are ‘Information sources’, ‘Risks of new technologies’, ‘Interaction with unmanned platforms’,

and ‘Adaptive automation’. Some variation was found within the category of ‘Interaction with unmanned

platforms’, these are mainly expressed through varying preferences of communication channels. The other

three categories show a lot of similarities between opinions of pilots. Most relevant codes are concerned with

over-engineering and the use of automation to appropriately support pilots in their tasks. In conclusion, this

study provides a mostly clear picture of subjective opinions of pilots regarding modern cockpits and the

application of new technological developments for the future, thereby providing valuable input for the

requirements engineering of the next generation cockpit.

1 INTRODUCTION

This explorative study aims to establish requirements

according to fighter pilots for the next generation

fighter (NGF) and is conducted in light of the current

European ‘Future Combat Air System’ (FCAS)

program. The aim of this program is the development

of the ‘Next Generation Weapon System’ (NGWS),

which is characterized by the development of a 6

generation piloted fighter working together with

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and being

connected to various systems of different domains

(Airbus, n.d.). The main feature of this so called

‘system of systems’ is the switch from manned

platforms flying in formation to a (single manned-)

collaboration of different weapon systems in different

domains. The premises of this structural change are

the facilitation of an information superiority,

cooperative mission execution, adjustment to a highly

dynamic operative environment, and a flexibly

adaptability towards an ever-changing capability

profile (ESG, n.d.).

The development of this ‘Next Generation

Fighter’ (NGF) is accompanied by multiple

challenges which demand an overhaul of the last

generation’s cockpit to fit the new requirements.

Critical for these requirements is that the new

technological functions are enabled while ensuring

successful incorporation of the human component.

To offer a common understanding about how

technology has evolved over the last decades as well

as to present the state-of-the-art cockpit technology

generation), a brief summary of the development

of cockpit technology is presented. One of the most

prominent changes is the evolution of analogue

indicators to digital displays. Moreover,

technological improvements within the cockpit,

including avionic systems and primary/secondary

control elements, have facilitated increasingly more

integrated and automated ‘Human-Machine

Interfaces and Interactions’ (HMI²) both in civil and

military aviation (Lim et al., 2018). This change of

the HMIs becomes apparent when looking at cockpit

interfaces from first-generation fighters like the F-86

Weigand, M. and Embacher, S.

The Next Generation Cockpit: Requirements of Fighter Pilots in a Highly Automated Environment.

DOI: 10.5220/0012951900004562

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Aircraft Systems (ICCAS 2024), pages 43-50

ISBN: 978-989-758-724-5

Sabre or the Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-15 compared to

cockpit interfaces of a 5

generation fighter like the

F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning (Martinic, 2015).

However, any progress in the field of HMI

development likely has a significant impact on the

user, i.e. the pilot, who has to perform operations

within this local environment, i.e. the cockpit

(Ismayilov, 2022). This became first clear during

World War II when discipline practitioners observed

poorly designed systems which were unsafe and

difficult to operate. Especially in the aviation domain

seemingly random failures and crashes occurred (Air

Force, n.d.; Keebler & Fausett, 2023). Finally,

understanding how users function within their

respective system and how the design of a system, its

controls, and the surrounding environment affect

safety and performance became the aim of research

(Keebler & Fausett, 2023). Thus, the scientific field

of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) emerged.

Various standards emphasise the involvement of

users in the design process to facilitate understanding

of how the user functions within the respective

system. The ANSI/HFES 400-2021 standard, for

example, describes the development process of a

technology with a human component. Here, it is

essential to include users throughout the entire design

process starting with learning as much as possible

about all the varieties of users who may potentially be

involved, their capabilities, limitations, performance,

and behaviour within the human-machine system. In

later stages, the standard describes the relevance of

including the right sample population for prototype

testing as well as continuing the observation of user

performance with the technology after being

implemented in the real world (Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 2021). Another topic-relevant

document is the NATO standard for designing

unmanned aircraft systems which states that it is

essential for the effectiveness and safety that the

human is fully integrated into the development

process starting at the system conception level

(NATO Standardization Office, 2022).

In accordance with the statements about the

importance of user inclusion and overall HFE

processes, this study aims at gathering relevant

information from fighter pilots for the design of the

generation fighter cockpit. In more detail, the aim

is to establish requirements for the new cockpit based

on (1) what experiences pilots had with interfaces

they were familiar with and (2) which expectations

pilots have regarding the main additions of the NGF

(i.e. the inclusion of UAVs, the thusly increased

adaptive automation technology as well as state-of-

the-art interaction technologies).

2 METHODS

2.1 Participants

For this study, a total of twelve participants were

interviewed. Due to the focus on military aviation in

our study, only fighter pilots were used as sample

group. Eight participants had the job of flight pilots

(i.e. ‘front seater’) whereas four participants served

as weapon systems officers (i.e. ‘back seater’). The

following aircraft have been flown by our

participants: F4, F18, Eurofighter, Tornado IDS &

ECR, and Alpha Jet. Due to one missing signed

consent form, only eleven interview transcripts were

used in the analysis.

2.2 Materials

In this study, a semi-structured interview was used as

data collection method (see Appendix A). The

standard app for voice memos on the iPhone SE 2020

was used to record the interview. A coding guideline,

based on the analysis method of Mayring, (Mayring,

2022) was used to set the information gathered from

the interviews into a meaningful context (see

Appendix B).

2.3 Procedure & Analysis

In this qualitative study the phenomenological

research method was used since the goal was to

capture multiple subjective perspectives/experiences

to the topic in question. For the data collection, semi-

structured one-to-one expert interviews were

conducted and the intelligent verbatim technique was

used for the transcription process.

A thematic analysis was conducted by applying

the summarizing structured evaluation process of

Mayring to identify patterns/themes within the data

relevant to the research question of this study. The

respective codes were created using a hybrid

approach of deductive and inductive techniques.

Hereby, the categories were created deductively

based on main aspects of the FCAS program whereas

sub-categories were coded inductively from the data.

3 RESULTS

A total of four deductively created categories were

formed: (1) Opinions on HMIs / information sources

within the cockpit, (2) Perceived risks of new

technologies in the NGF, (3) Interaction with UAVs

ICCAS 2024 - International Conference on Cognitive Aircraft Systems

as part of future tactical and strategic mission

execution, and (4) Requirements for adaptive

automation functionality envisioned as part of the

NGF. Within each category, sets of sub-categories

were formed inductively by analysing the interview

transcripts. The exact contents of each sub-category

are described in the discussion section of this study.

The first set of sub-categories allocated to the

category ‘Opinions on HMIs/information sources

within the cockpit’ are listed in Table 1. For the sub-

category ‘Information presentation’, topics like

central layout and opinions regarding multimodal

information presentation are included. The sub-

category ‘Arrangement of control elements’ includes

usability features (i.e. visibility and accessibility),

safety features, and personalisation. The sub-category

‘Multimodal controlling’ includes opinions expressed

towards interaction elements like touch, gestures, and

button types, as well as feedback requirements. The

sub-category ‘General HMI requirements’ includes

user requirements regarding the general HMI design

and user friendliness aspects.

Within the sub-categories ‘Information

presentation’ and ‘Multimodal controlling’,

respectively, topics like hard keys vs. touch and

centralized information depiction were of most

relevance during interviews.

Table 1: Opinions on HMIs/information sources within the

cockpit.

Category Sub-category

Opinions on

HMIs/Information

sources within the cockpit

Information presentation

Arrangement of control

elements

Multimodal controlling

General HMI

requirements

The category ‘Perceived risks of new technology

in the NGF’ has a total of five sub-categories as listed

in Table 2. The sub-category ‘Over-engineering’

includes the concern of pilots to not be integrated

enough in the design process, resulting in incorrect

information depiction (regarding timing and location)

and inclusion of unnecessary gimmicks. The sub-

category ‘Individual differences among pilots’

includes the concern of pilots to not be included in the

correct manner, i.e. that individual differences, and

thus requirements, of different pilot roles might be

overlooked. The sub-category ‘Workload’ includes

concerns of pilots related to being overloaded due to

an increased amount of information as well as the

information presentation being too complex and

inconclusive. The sub-category ‘Unreliable/immature

technology’ includes statements about how it is a

concern of pilots that technical systems do not

function properly, leading to a loss of trust. The sub-

category ‘Ethical concerns’ is comprised of ethical

concerns of pilots to not be included in decisions

involving lethal strike manoeuvres.

Both the concern regarding workload as well as

the concern that pilots might not be sufficiently

included in the design process of the NGF were topics

found to be relevant throughout different interviews

and were discussed in depth by the participants.

Table 2: Perceived risks of new technology in the NGF.

Category Sub-category

Perceived risks of new

technology in the NGF

Over-engineering

Individual differences

among pilots

Workload

Unreliable/immature

technology

Ethical concerns

The category ‘Interaction with UAVs as part of

future tactical and strategic mission execution’ has a

total of three sub-categories (see Table 3). The sub-

category ‘Perceived advantages of UAVs’ includes

perceived benefits of UAVs compared to standard

manned formation flying. Discussed topics of this

sub-category are improvements of the situational

awareness (SA) of pilots, increased safety, decreased

financial costs, and improved combat power. The sub-

category ‘Interaction with UAVs’ includes interaction

aspects in the context of UAV management. Here,

relevant topics include interaction modalities,

visualised representation of UAVs and their

respective actions, and envisioned concepts of task

(re-)allocation. The sub-category ‘Limitations of

UAVs’ includes perceived disadvantages of UAVs.

Discussed topics were shared responsibility,

restricted reaction behaviour, cost-benefit ratio, and

reliability.

Both the interaction topic, especially communica-

tion via speech, as well as the advantages of UAVs

were topics of the participants’ answers when asked

about the collaboration with UAVs.

The Next Generation Cockpit: Requirements of Fighter Pilots in a Highly Automated Environment

Table 3: Interaction with UAVs as part of future tactical and

strategic mission execution.

Category Sub-category

Interaction with UAVs as

part of future tactical and

strategic mission

execution

Perceived advantages of

UAVs

Interaction with UAVs

Limitations of UAVs

The category ‘Requirements for adaptive

automation functionality’ has a total of five sub-

categories (see Table 4). The sub-category

‘Requirements for adaptive automation behaviour’

includes requirements pilots have towards adaptive

automation behaviour with topics like transparency,

intelligence, override functions, and overall purpose

of adaptive automation. The sub-category ‘Trigger

requirements’ includes opinions of pilots in regard to

HMI triggers. Here, pilots had similar opinions

demanding adaption based on workload level, flight-

phases, external environment factors, and

physiological parameters. The sub-category ‘Support

concept’ includes requirements regarding how pilots

imagine support through adaptive automation and the

process of task (re-)allocation. The sub-category

‘Trust & Acceptance’ includes requirements pilots

have for the adaptive automation in order for them to

trust and accept it. The sub-category ‘Limitations’

includes requirements of pilots based on limitations

they expect the adaptive automation to have.

Table 4: Requirements for adaptive automation

functionality.

Category Sub-category

Requirements for

adaptive automation

functionality

Requirements for

adaptive automation

behaviour

Trigger requirements

Support concept

Trust & Acceptance

Limitations

Within this category, the topics of adaptive

automation behaviour as well as the trigger

requirements for when an adaption should take place

were discussed often and in detail.

4 DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was to collect opinions of

pilots regarding interfaces in, to them, familiar

cockpits and regarding new interface aspects

imagined to play a role in the NGF cockpit. Based on

their subjective opinion, the aim of this study was to

create initial requirements for the HMI within the

NGF. To accomplish this, expert interviews were

conducted as means of data collection. Results

derived from the hybrid coding method state four

categories, each with multiple sub-categories

assigned. However, before diving into the discussion

of each category, it is important to note that

statements about specific aircraft and interfaces are

abstracted for safety-critical reasons, such as to avoid

pointing out flaws in specific military aircraft.

4.1 Opinions on HMIs

Within the category ‘Opinions on HMIs/Information

sources within the cockpit’, statements about

multimodal interaction elements and the way of

information presentation appear to be most relevant,

as aspects of these two topics were discussed in depth

throughout the interviews.

Regarding multimodal controlling, pilots appear

to prefer hard keys. Arguments in their favour include

better haptic proportions, supporting pilots in

differentiating buttons from each other as well as

enabling pilots to operate them blindly. Interviewed

pilots agreed upon the fact that hard keys provide

better feedback when being pushed compared to

using touch or soft key buttons. “I need feedback, that

is why I like hard keys personally, if I only have a

display, I firstly don’t blindly find the button and

secondly I do not know whether I actually pushed the

button”, said one pilot. However, touch is not

unanimously disliked either. Especially faster and

easier command possibilities are recognized here but

it is made clear that pilots do have reservations about

using touch in every situation. Touch in combination

with high G-forces is seen as problematic, but also in

combination with equipment like wearing gloves, the

functionality of touch buttons is perceived as critical.

In any way, whether touch or hard keys, feedback and

distinguishability appear to be important

requirements here. Additionally, speech commands

and controlling via body movements like gestures or

eye tracking were discussed. Here, opinions of

interviewed pilots differ. While some see time-wise

advantages of controlling technology like eye-

tracking were recognized, concerns regarding

unintentional inputs through unconscious movements

ICCAS 2024 - International Conference on Cognitive Aircraft Systems

or noise of the environment interfering with speech

were found to be relevant, as well.

Continuing with the sub-category ‘Information

presentation’, pilots appear to agree that important

and often used information should be visually

presented within the centre of the cockpit. Hereby it

appears important to have a decluttered interface with

intuitive menu layers and simple information

presentation. Opinions differ on how information

should be presented as some claim that

abstract/symbolic presentations enhance the

recognition whereas others argue that too much use of

abbreviations can lead to confusion. Requirements for

information presentation are therefore to present

important information in the centre of attention and

create decluttered and intuitively structured menus.

The manner of presenting different information either

through visual or auditive means should be further

researched as no clear requirement could be formed

here based on the opinions of pilots.

Less relevant sub-categories included the

arrangement of control elements and general HMI

requirements. Regarding the former, pilots agreed

that an emphasis has to be on safety critical features

like control elements being easy to reach and should

not be concealed. “In single seater cockpits, the

tendence is that control elements are build up in a U-

shape around you. This is problematic if essential

buttons which you often need to use are somewhere

almost behind you”, explains one pilot. Additionally,

the wish for personalization of layouts was

mentioned, but with the annotation that standardized

set-ups should not be disregarded either. Moreover, a

safety feature hindering pilots to involuntarily

activate a safety critical button or lever appeared to be

relevant. The sub-category ‘General HMI

requirements’ entails demands regarding the general

HMI set up. Here, pilots agree that the way in which

information is presented as well as choosing which

interaction modality to use should be basic, user

friendly, and fit for purpose. Especially the ‘KISS

principle’ (keep it simple & stupid) appeared to be

relevant to pilots during the interviews.

4.2 Perceived Risks

Regarding the category ‘Perceived risks’, concerns

regarding over-engineering and workload appear to

be the most relevant for pilots.

The sub-category ‘Over-engineering’ included

concerns of pilots to not be integrated enough in the

design process. Here, pilots uniformly agreed that, if

not included, the NGF will present information

incorrectly, i.e. at the wrong place and at the wrong

time, as well as include features which are too

complex for the given environment. “So we

overcomplicate some of the displays because they are

not designed for pilots but for those great ideas”,

stated one pilot. Therefore, a requirement is to include

the user throughout the whole design process, as

multiple HFE standards state.

Within the sub-category ‘Workload’, statements

of pilots which refer to the concern of being

overloaded with visual and auditive information are

listed. Almost all pilots agree that they fear the

increased amount of information of the NGF being

too much to process. Controversially, there are also

statements of some pilots expressing the wish to have

most information visible somewhere. Therefore, the

requirement of not being overloaded with information

has to be researched in more detail to establish how

much information and which type of information

should be made available to pilots in different

situations.

Less relevant were the sub-categories ‘Individual

differences among pilots’, ‘Unreliable technology’,

and ‘Ethical concerns’. In comparison to the concern

that pilots will not be integrated within the design

process, the comparatively lesser talked about

concern was that only a specific type of pilots would

be included. Thus, a further requirement is to have a

sufficiently representative sample population of

pilots. Uniformly expressed concerns within the

unreliable technology sub-category are tied back to

the expectation of pilots that equipment will not

always function as intended and that, therefore, a

requirement should be that a fail-safe mechanism has

to be implemented. Lastly, ethical concerns are

uniformly expressed with pilots stating that they have

to be in- or, at least, on the loop when it comes to

firing weapons.

4.3 Interaction with UAVs

Regarding the category ‘Interaction with UAVs’, the

topic of interaction was discussed most detailed,

followed by expected advantages of the introduction

of UAVs and, lastly, expected limitations.

Within the sub-category ‘Interaction with UAVs’,

the use of auditive communication channels (i.e.

voice) was discussed in great detail. Opinions of

pilots are split regarding this topic, with advocates

stating that voice is the known routine and that it does

not require the visual attention of the pilots being

directed inwards, e.g. at a screen. Adversaries state

that the use of voice is too unreliable as command

input and also not compatible with situations in which

the pilot is subjected to high G-forces. Also, the

The Next Generation Cockpit: Requirements of Fighter Pilots in a Highly Automated Environment

communication from UAV to pilot appeared relevant,

with pilots stating that it would probably be best if it

was situation dependent, but feedback would be

necessary in any case. Therefore, no clear

requirement can be formed here as opinions were

almost evenly split indicating the need to research this

question further.

Within the sub-category ‘Perceived advantages’,

it becomes apparent that pilots indeed see the

inclusions of UAVs as a positive development in the

field of military aviation as this could improve

combat power, lower the risk for pilots by reducing

the need for humans to enter hazardous territory, and

gather more information, thereby increasing SA.

Limitations, however, were also part of some

discussions. Here, pilots were mainly concerned with

the management of UAVs unnecessarily increasing

workload. One pilot stated:” We must avoid creating

more task load for the single remaining pilot up there.

The crew must make decisions and it cannot be that

the rest of the time, the pilot is busy making micro

adjustments”. Thus, the avoidance of micro-

management can be seen as a requirement of

collaborating with UAVs. On the other hand,

interviewed pilots insisted that critical decisions

should remain in their responsibility, as the creativity

in forming decisions is seen still as major advantage

humans have over machines.

Explicit requirements for this category are hard to

establish as opinions of pilots differ a lot, but what

can be derived is that pilots do not want to control

every little movement of the UAVs but instead take

on more of a management role.

4.4 Requirements for Adaptive

Automation

Within the category ‘Requirements for adaptive

automation functionality’, requirements for adaptive

automation behaviour were discussed in most detail

during the interviews. Here, especially transparency

was a requirement discussed in detail. Pilots agreed

that the actions of the adaptive automation have to be

transparent in order to trust it and not destroy their

SA. One pilot explained: “Theoretically, if the aircraft

told me that it changed from system state A to B, that

would be great, but if it wildly switches around and I

can not trust it, that would be bad”. Other aspects of

the transparency that were discussed were

predictability and reasons behind the adaption.

Another requirement discussed within this sub-

category is the ability of an override. Pilots

unanimously agreed that this is a function that has to

be present. Additionally, it was unanimously agreed

upon that the adaptive automation should not replace

the pilots but support them. In other words,

automation should not take away the control pilots

have, but take on more of an assistance function

supporting the pilot. To clarify, this does not imply

that the pilot cannot surrender tasks to the automation.

That is a prospective function very much appreciated

by pilots. Instead, the requirement deduced here is

that if the system does not keep the pilots in the loop,

it should at least support them in staying on the loop.

Furthermore, the topic of intelligent adaption

appeared to be relevant. For example, a rejection

strategy for multiple denied actions by the pilot was

mentioned.

The next sub-category (‘Trigger requirements’) in

line for being extensively discussed included

opinions of pilots in regard to which triggers to use

for the adaption. In relation to this, handling of

emergency situations was discussed in detail. The

handling should either include passively supporting

the pilot through the correct depiction of instructions

about what to do or actively intervening. Additionally,

pilots listed workload, flight phases, and external

factors (e.g. brightness of sun) as acceptable triggers

for adaption, whereas physiological parameters were

seen as critical by almost every pilot interviewed. “It

might be even more dangerous to monitor the pilot

and depending on this, change the HMI because that

will destroy his SA in a second”, elaborated one pilot.

Therefore, requirements for the sub-category ‘Trigger

requirements’ include adding emergency situations,

external environmental factors, workload, and flight

phases as trigger for adaption while excluding

physiological parameters.

A less detailed discussed sub-category was ‘Trust

& Acceptance’. Here, pilots either had the viewpoint

that reliability of a system function produces trust or

that a declining advection to the adaption (i.e.

auditive warnings first, then adaption proposals at

second, reduction over time to warning only) would

be helpful. However, others also stated that, since

their life is on the line, they are forced to trust the

system, therefore trust does not matter. The most

basic requirement unanimously agreed upon here was

that the system has to function as intended as,

apparently, the malfunction of systems was an often

occurring issue in past fighter models. Due to the

diversity in answers, no further requirement can be

formed here, therefore, further research into this topic

is recommended.

The last sub-category ‘Limitations’ included

drawbacks perceived by pilots towards adaptive

automation. Here, pilots appear to agree that adaptive

automation should not take away their responsibility

ICCAS 2024 - International Conference on Cognitive Aircraft Systems

of making decisions, especially when being

confronted with new or unknown situations. Also, it

was discussed that the intelligence of technology, i.e.

artificial intelligence, is (as of now) still below the

intelligence of humans when being confronted with

unknown situations. Therefore, the responsibility to

decide what to do should still be left to the pilot.

4.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, the following requirements were

established out of the expert interviews: The

first category produced the requirements of

feedback and distinguishability for the different input

elements, centred information depiction and

decluttered/intuitive menu build ups, and simple

interaction modalities which are easy to reach and not

obstructed. The second category produced the

requirements of including (representative) pilots all

throughout the design process, not overloading the

pilot with information, and including a fail-safe

mechanism in case of technological malfunction. The

third category produced the requirements of not

having to micro-manage each single UAV, as these

should support them instead of adding to their task

load. The fourth category produced the following

requirements: Feedback of automated behaviour (i.e.

pilot on the loop), an override function, transparent

adaptive behaviour, and the avoidance of taking away

the authority for making decisions and taking

responsibility from the pilots.

This study did not include a large sample size

(N=11), which is acceptable for its explorative

qualitative nature. Still, it would be interesting to

conduct quantitatively structured research with a

larger sample size using actual prototype concepts, to

further study the requirements deduced here. In any

case, the inclusion of representative stakeholders as

well as the integration of HFE expertise is seen as

essential for the success of the FCAS program.

REFERENCES

Airbus. (n.d.). Future Combat Air System. https://www.air

bus.com/en/products-services/defence/multi-domain-su

periority/future-combat-air-system-fcas

Air Force (n.d.). Air Force Human System Integration

Handbook. Planning and Execution of Human Systems

Integration. Brooks City-Base. https://acqnotes.com/

Attachments/Air%20Force%20Human%20System%20I

ntegration%20Handbook.pdf

ESG. (n.d.). Future Combat Air System – Enabling Air Power

in Network operations. https://esg.de/de/programme/fcas

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2021). Human

Readiness Level Scale in the System Development

Process (ANSI/HFES 400-2021).

Ismayilov, I. M. (2022). Interaction between human-machine

interface and avionics on aircraft cockpit. Problems of

Information Society, 13(2), 3-11. http://doi.org/10.25045/

jpis.v13.i2.01

Keebler, J. R. & Fausett, C. M. (2023). Human factors in

aviation and aerospace: An overview. In J. R. Keebler, E.

H. Lazzara, K. A. Wilson, & E. L. Blickensderfer (Eds.),

Human Factors in Aviation and Aerospace (pp. 1-9).

Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-

420139-2.00004-6

Lim. Y., Gardi, A., Sabatini, R., Ramasamy, S., Kistan, T.,

Ezer, N., Vince, J., & Bolia, R. (2018). Avionics Human-

Machine Interfaces and Interactions for Manned and

Unmanned Aircraft. Progress in Aerospace Sciences,

102(), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.05.

002

Martinic, G. (2015). Jet fighter aircraft – five ‘generations’

later, and still counting. Australian Naval Institute.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary-Martinic/pub

lication/283724045_Jet_fighter_aircraft_-_five_'genera

tions'_later_and_still_counting/links/5a08101c4585157

013a5e1ba/Jet-fighter-aircraft-five-generations-later-an

d-still-counting.pdf

Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Beltz

Verlag.https://www.beltz.de/fachmedien/paedagogik/pro

dukte/details/48632-qualitative-inhaltsanalyse.html?

NATO Standardization Office (2022). Human Systems

Integration Guidance for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(AEP-4685)

APPENDIX

Appendix A

Semi-structured interview questions:

1. Which role/tasks did you have in the aircraft?

2. Which aircraft models did you fly?

3. What are your opinions about single interfaces

and/or sources of information in cockpits of

aircraft you are familiar with:

a. Particularly good interfaces?

b. Particularly bad interfaces?

4. What risks do you see in regard to the cockpit

of the NGF:

a. In regard to adaptive automation?

b. In regard to the collaboration with

UAVs?

c. In regard to new interaction

technologies?

5. Is there anything else you would like to see in

regard to interfaces of the NGF?

The Next Generation Cockpit: Requirements of Fighter Pilots in a Highly Automated Environment

Appendix B

Table 5: Self-developed coding guideline after Mayring.

Category Definition Example Coding Rule

Opinions on

HMIs/information sources

within the cockpit

All text passages which

include a subjective

experience about HMIs of

current or future cockpits

allowing two-way

communication

“In single seater cockpits,

the tendence is that control

elements are build up in a

U-shape around you. This

is problematic if essential

buttons which you often

need to use are somewhere

almost behind you”

Interview passage must

express an experience of a

past, current, or (possible)

future HMI which either

hinders or reinforces the

performance of pilots

Perceived risks of new

technologies in the NGF

All text passages which

include a perceived risk or

concern of pilots with

respect to

technologies/capabilities of

the NGF

“To be overloaded with

functions and information I

cannot process is my

number one priority of

what must not happen”

Interview passage must

express a concern in

relation to the capabilities

of future technology of the

NGF and/or its

consequences for the

human

Interaction with UAVs All text passages which

include an subjective

opinion about collaborating

with UAVs

“We must avoid creating

more task load for the

single remaining pilot up

there. The crew must make

decisions and it cannot be

that the rest of the time, the

pilot is busy making micro

adjustments”

Interview passage must

express an opinion about

UAV-related technology

and/or an envisioned way

of collaboration/interaction

between manned and

unmanned platforms

Requirements for adaptive

automation functionality

All text passages which

include a requirement of

pilots for the functional

behaviour of adaptive

automation

“What has changed is the

level of automation in the

flight controls which I read

directly as assistance. And

that assistance does change

depending what you are

doing which leads to other

problems that ,often, pilots

do not know what the

aircraft is doing”

Interview passage must

express a wish/requirement

for the functional way of

working of adaptive

automation in a

collaborative context

ICCAS 2024 - International Conference on Cognitive Aircraft Systems