HUMAN FACTORS, 1988,30(3),293-304

Multiattribute Modeling Analysis of the

Effects of a Low Blood Alcohol Level on
Pilot Performance

LEONARD E. ROSS' and JAMES C. MUNDT, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

Multiattribute modeling procedures were used to evaluate the flight performance of pilots
who completed a simulator flight under 0 and 0.04% blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
conditions. The flight involved VOR tracking, vectoring, traffic avoidance, and descent.
Flight instructors' judgments were used to develop a multiattribute model of flight perfor-
mance that permitted evaluation of the effects of alcohol on overall flight performance, as
well as on task segment and performance aspect components of the flight. Alcohol was
found to have a significant deleterious effect on overall pilot performance and on some of the
task segments. The multiattribute modeling approach was found to be useful in providing a
task analysis function that permitted alcohol effects to be evaluated in a manner that re-
flected pilot concentration on some aspects of the flight task at the expense of others.

INTRODUCTION equipment to measure any ingested alcohol"

It is commonly recognized that flying with
a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is
very dangerous and often fatal. This conclu-
sion is strongly supported by accident data
and by research that has demonstrated a va-
riety of performance decrements as BAC ap-
proaches and exceeds 0.10%. With respect to
lower BAC values, common sense suggests
that the presence of any alcohol in a pilot's
blood can jeopardize flight safety. The Na-
tional Transportation Safety Board has taken
that position and recommended in 1984 that
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
set the BAC limit "at the lowest possible level
consistent with the capability of testing
I Requests for reprints should be sent to Leonard E.
Ross, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin,
1202 W. Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706.
(1984, p. 21). Interest in the effects of lower
BAC values on pilot performance has been
heightened by the FAA's 1985 adoption of a
rule that no person with a BAC of 0.04% or
higher may act or attempt to act as a crew
member of a civil aircraft.
The experimental evidence with respect to
the effects of low BAC on pilot performance is
not extensive, however, and in some cases is
somewhat contradictory. In proposing and
adopting the 0.04% BAC value the FAA cited
only one study, that by Billings, Wick, Gerke,
and Chase (1972). In this study eight experi-
enced and eight less experienced pilots flew
ILS approaches at night in a Cessna 172
while under the influence of each of four
blood alcohol levels: 0.0%,0.04%,0.08%, and
0.12%. Significant alcohol effects were ob-
served with the higher BAC values for lateral

© 1988, The Human Factors Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

294-June 1988
ILS control in the case of experienced pilots,
whereas less experienced pilots showed sig-
nificant decrements in both lateral and verti-
cal ILS control. Minor decrements in ILS
tracking were observed at the 0.04% BAC
value only for the less experienced pilot
group. Most important, both groups were ob-
served to make linearly increasing numbers
of major procedural errors at BACs of 0.04%,
0.08%, and 0.12%.
The results of simulator studies concerned
with the effects of low BAC values on pilot
performance have been mixed. Aksnes (1954)
reported that BACs of about 0.05% had dele-
terious effects on pilots' abilities to fly a Link
trainer over a U-shaped course requiring alti-
tude and airspeed changes, and suggested
that even lower BACs could have an effect-
that is, "one must be prepared for a lower
ability to perform with a 0.02 percent B.A."
(p. 688). Henry et al. (1974) also concluded
that BACs of 0.02-0.035% could produce sig-
nificant decrements in performance of a sim-
ulated cross-country flight involving 37
maneuvers over a one-hour test session.
Interpretation of these data is equivocal,
however, given that only 2 of the 22 subjects
were licensed pilots, not all measures showed
significant differences at this BAC range, and
the experimental procedures make data anal-
ysis difficult.
More recently Taylor, Dellinger, Schilling,
and Richardson (1983) tested eight pilots in a
simulator flight task that involved holding
patterns and ILS approaches. Performance
decrements were significant for subjects
tested with a median BAC of 0.082% but not
with BAC values of 0.038% or 0.014%. Using
the same task, Hyman, Taylor, Weller, and
Nagel (1986) failed to find significant overall
effects of a 0.05% BAC on pilot performance.
In both of these studies the subjects were
given a secondary (Sternberg) task to per-
form while "flying" the simulator.
In contrast to these results, Ross and
HUMAN FACTORS
Mundt (1986) found that pilots with a 0.04%
BAC showed decrements in some simulator
flight measures while maintaining straight
and level flight under light and moderate
turbulence conditions. In this study pilots
monitored front and side displays for aircraft
silhouettes representing aircraft targets dur-
ing flight and were found to make fewer
scanning head movements when under the
influence of a 0.04% BAC. In the final stage of
the flight pilots were given an additional task
of either copying weather information for
their destination airport or making commu-
nication and navigation radio frequency
changes, during which the simulator's in-
struments and a horizon displayed on a front
monitor showed a banked climb or descent
that gradually increased over a 5-s period.
Under the 0.04% alcohol condition the sub-
jects lost, in the case of a banked descent, or
gained, in the case of a banked climb, signifi-
cantly more altitude than without alcohol
and also took longer to recover from their un-
usual attitudes. Two pilots with a 0.04% BAC
in effect "crashed" the simulator during this
flight segment.
Overall, these results suggest that the ef-
fects of a low BAC may become apparent only
under certain test conditions. It appears that
they are most likely to be found when multi-
ple tasks are required of the subject, or per-
haps when the primary task load is very
heavy. In a relatively focused task such as
keeping glideslope and localizer needles cen-
tered, the effects of low blood alcohol levels
may not be apparent, but even a moderate or
low BAC may lead to performance decre-
ments when multiple tasks with distributed
attentional demands must be performed. In
some cases attention may be inappropriately
distributed among tasks in a manner that
could be quite dangerous in the flight envi-
ronment-for example, when primary atten-
tion is allocated to a task that is secondary in
importance to flight safety.
ALCOHOL AND PILOT PERFORMANCE
If measurement of more complex combina-
tions of tasks such as those often found in ac-
tual flight is required to accurately assess
alcohol's effects, then it may be necessary to
devise and use multiattribute measures of
pilot performance. In the present study,
pilots' performance on a cross-country simu-
lator flight was compared under 0.0% and
0.04% BAC conditions. A multiattribute per-
formance model, based on multiattribute
value and utility assessment techniques dis-
cussed by Keeney and Raiffa (1976) and von
Winterfeldt and Edwards (1986), was devel-
oped to assess performance. In this model,
single dimensional flight parameters were
weighted and combined into multidimen-
sional aspects of pilot performance. These
performance aspects were, in turn, weighted
and combined into task segment scores,
which were then combined to provide an
overall index of pilot performance. Use of the
evaluation model permitted examination of
pilot performance in terms of these perfor-
mance aspect and task segment scores, and
also provided a procedure by which an over-
all index of flight performance could be de-
rived.
METHOD
Subjects
Twelve male pilots (median age = 27
years, range = 19-39 years) served as sub-
jects in the experiment. All had a relatively
low number of flying hours (median = 110,
range = 50-315), and none had an instru-
ment rating or a significant amount of in-
strument training. Six had served in a pre-
vious study using the same simulator but a
different flight task, which they had flown
with both a BAC of 0.0% and a BAC value
similar to that used in this study. Thus these
subjects could be considered somewhat expe-
rienced with respect to both simulator flight
and the alcohol variable. Subjects were
June 1988-295
screened for any physical condition or drug
use that contraindicated alcohol consump-
tion. Those not using alcohol or attempting
to abstain from alcohol use were not ac-
cepted as subjects.
Apparatus
A highly modified ATC 610 simulator (pro-
cedures trainer) was used in the study. The
simulator was in a specially constructed en-
closure that contained a front and two side
monitors with screen sizes of 42 cm x 31 cm
and 27 cm x 21 cm, respectively. The side
monitors were positioned such that a hori-
zontal head movement greater than 20 deg
was required to detect targets displayed on
the screen. A horizon (with a filled "ground"
area) was always present on the front screen,
with the horizon tilting and moving verti-
cally in synchrony with the horizon line of
the attitude indicator. Small silhouette air-
craft targets could appear at any of 8 loca-
tions on the top part of the front monitor
screen or in any of 16 locations on either of
the side monitor screens. Once they ap-
peared, the silhouettes were present for 40 s
and either remained constant in size or be-
came larger (loomed) to indicate an ap-
proaching aircraft. The subject pressed a
button located on the left horn of the control
yoke to indicate detection of the target.
The simulator was modified such that the
instruments were backlighted and many of
the electronic components were replaced
with higher-precision items. The aircraft seat
used with the simulator could be adjusted
vertically and the rudder pedals could be ad-
justed to the subject's preferred position.
Each subject's head position was the same
distance from the instrument panel and
monitors. Head movements were measured
using a helmet device that permitted move-
ment in the horizontal and vertical planes.
Transducers attached to the helmet provided
head orientation information to O.1-deg accu-
296-June 1988
racy. The BAC determinations were made
from breath samples by a Federal Signal Cor-
poration Model 5000 Intoxilizer.
Subjects' responses and flight performance
measures were sampled, digitized, recorded,
and analyzed by computer. The measures
used and their sampling intervals were as
follows: target detection button press, hori-
zontal head movements, and pitch and roll
yoke control movements, 100 ms; attitude in-
dicator pitch and roll, vertical speed indica-
tor (VSI), and course deviation indicator
(CDI), 200 ms; and altimeter, directional gyro
readings, and airspeed, 500 ms.
Design
Each subject was tested under 0.0% and
low (0.04%) BAC conditions on two consecu-
tive days according to a Latin square design.
Two flight tasks were used that were similar
in that the same flight tasks were involved
but with different headings, altitudes, and
sequence of traffic targets. Half of the sub-
jects received one order of the two flights,
while the other half received the reverse
order across the two experimental flight
days.
Subjects were given 90 min of instruction
and simulator practice on the day prior to
the first day of the two-day experimental se-
quence. In addition, subjects received a 15-
min practice flight prior to the beginning of
each experimental flight. The simulator
flight task required the subject to complete a
preflight checklist, intercept and track a VOR
radial inbound to a VOR, turn to a new radial
and follow it outbound, and then continue
the flight until instructions were received to
descend preparatory to landing. A landing
checklist was then to be used, followed by de-
scent to an assigned altitude. Recorded con-
troller messages were given throughout the
45-min flight, and at several points the con-
troller vectored the pilot away from and back
to the radial. A number of radio frequency
HUMAN FACTORS
changes were also required, and "air traffic"
in the vicinity of the pilot was reported. On 9
of the 13 occasions when a traffic call was
made, an aircraft silhouette target was pre-
sented on one of the three monitors, and the
pilot was instructed to press the control yoke
button as soon as the target was sighted. Ap-
pearance of the targets was delayed up to 1
min after the call. If the target loomed to-
ward the pilot, which occurred four times
each flight, he was instructed to make a colli-
sion avoidance maneuver; that is, a descent
of 200 ft (60.96 m) if the looming target ap-
peared in the upper half of the monitor
screen, or a climb of 200 ft if the target ap-
peared in the bottom half of the screen.
Looming and non looming targets appeared
on the side screens, but only nonlooming tar-
gets were presented on the front screen. The
subject was not informed of that fact prior to
the flights.
Procedures
Following completion of screening ques-
tionnaires, subjects were given either alcohol
and orange juice or a placebo condition in
which 3 cc of alcohol was floated on top of
orange juice. Three 150-cc drinks were ad-
ministered over a 25-min period that started
50 min prior to the beginning of the test pe-
riod, with subjects given 5 min to complete
each drink. A 96% ethanol dose of 0.5 gm/kg
of body weight was found necessary to obtain
a 0.04% BAC at the time of testing. A very
small (0.062 gmlkg) maintenance drink of al-
cohol in orange juice (or a placebo drink for
nonalcohol days) was also given to subjects
just before they entered the simulator to en-
sure that their BAC would remain close to the
desired level over the experimental period
(Lentz and Rundell, 1976). The subject's BAC
was determined when he entered the labora-
tory, prior to entering the simulator, at the
end of the flight period, and regularly there-
after until BAC reached 0.0%, at which time
ALCOHOL AND PILOT PERFORMANCE
the subject was released. Subjects in the pla-
cebo group on Day 1 were kept for several
hours after the flight and given several
breath tests during that time so they would
not become aware that they had not received
alcohol. Although every attempt was made to
keep the subjects unaware of the amount of
alcohol they consumed, all were aware from
internal cues and self-perceived effects of al-
cohol on their behavior that they received
more alcohol on the alcohol day than on the
placebo day.
The Multiattribute Performance Model
Multiattribute value and utility assess-
ment techniques (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976;
von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986) were
used to develop the model structure and to
quantify the elements within the model. The
two experienced flight instructors whose
judgments were used in developing the
model were informed that the purpose of the
model was to create a scale of pilot perfor-
mance that could be used to score flight per-
formance as they would have had they actu-
ally observed the flight. The range of
performance of interest was described as on a
continuum between a theoretically perfect
flight and a flight that would have a signifi-
cant probability of an accident. The instruc-
tors were familiarized with the equipment
and procedures and allowed to fly the same
flight scenario as the subjects.
The first step was the compilation of a list
of the flight parameters that would be useful
in evaluating pilot performance-that is, al-
titude, heading, reaction time to targets, and
so on. After the instructors were satisfied that
the list was exhaustive, they were asked if the
various flight parameters could be naturally
grouped with respect to the type of perfor-
mance information they represented. They
were also asked to identify any flight parame-
ters that were redundant with respect to the
information they conveyed. This procedure
June 1988-297
resulted in the identification of three perfor-
mance aspects: Vertical Control, Horizontal
Control. and Cockpit Duties. These aspects
were considered by the instructors to be or-
thogonal dimensions of pilot performance,
and the flight parameters that indexed these
dimensions were judged to be value-indepen-
dent in terms of their contributions to the
identified performance aspects, although it
was recognized that they are not orthogonal
in terms of flight characteristics (e.g., roll
changes will affect aircraft heading and
therefore course deviation indications).
Several days later the instructors were
provided with a detailed time line and tran-
scripts of the flight communication sce-
narios, and were asked to identify flight seg-
ments in which fundamentally different tasks
were required of the pilots. These task seg-
ments were to be unique in terms of the
weightings of their component performance
aspects, or the selection of the flight parame-
ters from which the performance aspects
were computed.
The flight measures were scaled in the fol-
lowing manner. For each flight parameter
within each performance aspect of each task
segment, the instructors were asked to pro-
vide an optimal value and the deviations
above or below that value that, if exceeded,
would lead to a situation that had a signifi-
cant probability of an accident occurring.
They were then asked to draw a continuous
curve on a graph such that the optimal value
received a value of 100 and the maximum de-
viation received a value of O. Using these
functions the sampled data, averaged over
5-s intervals, were converted into flight pa-
rameter values between 0 and 100, inclusive.
The importance of the different flight pa-
rameters contributing to the performance
aspects was determined using a ratio estima-
tion technique. For each task segment the in-
structors were asked to identify the most im-
portant flight parameter within each of the
298-June 1988
performance aspects, and this flight parame-
ter was assigned a value of 100. The remain-
ing flight parameters within the performance
aspects were assigned numbers reflecting
their importance relative to the parameter
that had been assigned the value of 100. The
numbers assigned to the flight parameters
within each performance aspect were then
summed, and the number assigned to each
individual parameter was divided by this
sum. This produced scale constants that re-
flected the relative importance of the flight
parameters constituting each performance
aspect. For each 5-s interval, the derived
flight parameter values were multiplied by
their scale constants (which depended on the
flight task during that interval) and then
summed, yielding an aspect value for each of
the three performance aspects for each 5 s of
the flight. If any flight parameter within a
performance aspect had a value of 0, then the
performance aspect value for that interval
was also made O.
Two questions were considered concerning
the combining of performance aspect values
into task segment scores and task segment
scores into overall pilot performance mea-
sures. The first concerned whether the values
obtained from the derived functions should
be converted into utility measures and thus
incorporate the instructors' attitudes toward
risk, or whether these attitudes were embed-
ded in the value judgments made by the in-
structors during construction of the model.
Consequently, quantitative forms of the
model using both values and utilities were
constructed.
Utility functions were constructed by de-
termining a specific performance aspect
value, or a task segment score, to which the
instructors were indifferent in comparison
with a lottery that had a 0.5 probability of
that aspect or task segment being at either
maximum or minimum. Given that, by defi-
HUMAN FACTORS
nition, the expected utility of such reference
lotteries is 0.5, the specific value at which the
instructors expressed indifference was also
assigned a utility of 0.5 and a utility function
was approximated.
The second question concerned the possi-
bility that components at a given level of the
model might interact in indexing pilot per-
formance, thus requiring multiplicative
rather than additive functions. Because it
was not known how, or if, such combina-
tional differences would affect the validity of
the model, evaluation of pilot performance
was conducted using both combinational
forms for both value and utility measures.
Multiplicative functions were derived
through the use of procedures described by
Keeney and Raiffa (1976). Additive functions
were derived using the ratio estimation tech-
nique described earlier for combining flight
parameter values into performance aspect
values. These quantitative forms of the model
were computed at both the performance
aspect to task segment score and the average
task segment to overall pilot performance
measure levels of the model (see Mundt and
Ross, 1987, for additional discussion).
RESULTS
Blood Alcohol Levels
The mean BAC for pilots entering the simu-
lator was 0.043% with a standard deviation
(SD) of 0.004% and a range of 0.036%-
0.048%. At the end of the flight the mean BAC
was 0.038% with an SD of 0.003% and a range
of 0.033%-0.045%.
The Multiattribute Performance Model
The four different task segments that were
identified were VOR Tracking, Vectoring, De-
scent, and Collision Avoidance, each of which
was indexed in terms of the three perfor-
ALCOHOL AND PILOT PERFORMANCE June 1988-299

mance aspects described earlier. The overall to the CDI (course setting), checklist, scan-
model structure is shown in Figure 1. ning, and target detection. If the subject had
The three performance aspects identified no trouble with the OBS course setting
were horizontal control of the aircraft, verti- throughout the flight, a score of 100 was as-
cal control of the aircraft, and cockpit duties signed. If there was apparent trouble in set-
required of the pilot. Horizontal Control was ting the OBS but the correct setting was
defined for each 5-s interval of each task seg- achieved, a 50 was assigned. If experimenter
ment in terms of the following performance intervention was required to obtain the cor-
measures: heading, roll, CDI deviation, and rect setting, the subject received a O. If the
aileron control input. Heading was scored as checklist was used without difficulty, a 100
the average deviation between the actual and was given, but if a problem occurred, a a was
expected heading, roll as the average bank received. Scanning was scored by assigning
angle, CDI deviation as the average deviation the subject a 100 if a head turn occurred in a
from the radial in degrees, and aileron con- 5-s interval, and 4 points less than the value
trol as the SD of the yoke-roll A to D samples. for the previous interval if a head turn did
Vertical Control was defined for each 5-s in- not occur. This scoring scheme was consis-
terval in terms of altitude, pitch, airspeed, tent with the instructors' judgments that
vertical speed, and elevator control input. Al- scanning for other aircraft at least every 5 s
titude was scored as the average deviation was optimal and that neglecting to scan for
from the correct altitude, pitch as the aver- more than 2.5 min should result in a value of
age pitch angle, airspeed as the average de- O. Finally, for target detection, the subject re-
viation from the assigned airspeed of 110 ceived 100 minus 2.5 times the number of
knots (90 knots on descent), vertical speed as seconds the target was presented but not de-
the average VSI value, and elevator control tected. Thus targets detected immediately re-
input as the largest absolute change between sulted in a value of lOa, and missed targets
two A and D samples within the 5-s interval. produced a value of 0 because targets were
Flight parameter deviations from optimal present for 40 s.
levels for both the alcohol and no-alcohol The output of the different quantitative
conditions are shown in Table 1. forms of the model (value versus utility mea-
Cockpit Duties were defined with respect sures combined additive1y or multiplica-
tively) was compared for differences.
PILOT PERFORMANCE Whereas generally the same alcohol effects
5 were significant with utility functions, their
"I
----I--t--I----1 E
T G added complexity, combined with the ques-
VOR
TRtlNG f
VECTORING
f
DESCENT COLLISION
AVOiANCE
A
5 E
K N
T
5
M
tions raised by von Winterfeldt and Edwards
(1986) concerning the distinction between
p
VERTICAL
CONTROL
VERTICAL VERTICAL VERTICAL E value and utility measures, suggested that
CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL R A
F 5 value models would be appropriate for mea-
HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL 0 P
CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL R E
COCKPIT COCKPIT
M C
A T
suring pilot performance in the present
COCKPIT COCKPIT
N S
DUTIES DUTIES DUTIES DUTIES
C study. Therefore, only the results from the
E
t t
FLIGHT PARAMETERS
t t value-additive and value-multiplicative
models will be presented.
Figure 1. Pilot perfonnance evaluation model struc- The additive model weightings of the task
ture. segment value for the overall pilot perfor-
300-June 1988 HUMAN FACTORS

TABLE 1

Flight Parameter Deviations from Optimal Levels for Vertical and Horizontal Control Performance
Aspects Averaged over Task Segments

Collision
VOR Vectoring Descent Avoidance

Alc No Alc' Ale No Ale Ale No Ale Ale No Alc

Vertical Control
Altitude 82 75 47 47 127 114
Pitch 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.9 2.6 2.4
VSI 250 228 212 205 486 413 431 436
Airspeed 4.3 3.5 4.7 4.2 9.2 8.8
Elevators 22.5 17.6 23.7 18.3 20.1 16.7 22.0 17.5
Horizontal Control
Heading 13.9 11.1 20.6 15.2 14.4 10.4 19.6 12.7
Roll 5.5 4.9 6.6 6.3 5.9 5.4 7.0 5.9
COl 2.0 1.4 2.7 1.2 4.1 2.7
Ailerons 51.7 64.1 50.5 37.7 47.9 43.3 45.0 43.2

• Data from one subject excluded because of descent below 0 fl.

mance score were as follows (the abbrevia- task segment measures, the weightings of the
tion for each term is given following the performance aspect values for the additive
term): model were:

Performance = 0.243 v(VOR) Performance = 0.5 v(Vertical Control, VC)

+ 0.243 v(Vectoring, Vec) + 0.375 v(Horizontal Control,
+ 0.243 v(Descent, D) HC)
+ 0.270 v(Collision Avoid- + 0.125 v(Cockpit Duties, CD)
ance, CA)
and for the Collision Avoidance task segment:
For the multiplicative model the corre-
sponding values were: Performance = 0.364 v(VC) + 0.364 v(HC)
+ 0.272 v(CD)
Performance = 0.85 v(CA) + 0.255 v(D)
+ 0.425 v(Vec) + 0.425 v(VOR) For the multiplicative model the VOR and
- 0.205 v(CA)v(D) Vectoring weights were:
- 0.342 v(CA)v(Vec)
Performance = 0.825 v(VC) + 0.124 v(HC)
- 0.342 v(CA)v(VOR)
+ 0.008 v(CD)
- 0.103 v(Vec)v(D)
+ 0.04 v(VC)v(HC)
- 0.103 v(VOR)v(D)
- 0.171 v(VOR)v(Vec)
For Descent:
+ 0.083 v(CA)v(D)(Vec)
+ 0.083 v(CA)v(D)v(VOR) Performance = 0.70 v(VC) + 0.05 v(HC)
+ 0.041 v(D)v(Vec)v(VOR) + 0.007 v(CD)
+ 0.138 v(CA)v(Vec)v(VOR) + 0.01 v(VC)v(CD)
- 0.033 v(CA)v(D)v(Vec)v(VOR) + 0.172 v(VC)v(HC)
In the case of VOR, Vectoring, and Descent For Collision Avoidance:
ALCOHOL AND PILOT PERFORMANCE June 1988-301

Performance = 0.95 v(VC) + om v(HC) and the order of alcohol administration (alco-
+ 0.475 v(CD) hol versus no alcohol on Day 1) as between-
- 0.462 v(VC)v(CD) subjects factors. The overall pilot perfor-
mance scores resulting from the additive
Average additive model scores for overall
model showed a significant alcohol perfor-
pilot performance, task segments, and perfor-
mance decrement, F(1,8) = 5.32, P < 0.05. A
mance aspects for both the alcohol and no-al-
significant interaction of alcohol and alcohol
cohol conditions are shown in Table 2.
order, F(1,8) = 7.90, P < 0.025, and a signifi-
cant interaction of alcohol, alcohol order,
Analysis of Performance Measures and flight sequence, F(1,8) = 8.84, P < 0.02,
were also found. The Alcohol x Alcohol
The overall performance scores of the sub-
Order interaction reflected the fact that the
jects who had participated in a previous sim-
alcohol decrement was greater when alcohol
ulator study were compared with the scores
was received on Day 1 than when it was re-
of those who had not. No significant differ-
ceived on Day 2. The interaction of alcohol,
ences were found involving this factor, so it
alcohol order, and flight sequence appeared
was not considered in the following analyses.
to be a result of the greater difficulty of the
An analysis of variance was carried out on
Flight B sequence, which, when flown on Day
the model-derived performance scores with
1 without alcohol, resulted in slightly poorer
alcohol as a within-subjects factor, and flight
performance than when the Flight A se-
sequence (Flight A versus Flight B on Day 1)
quence was flown on Day 2 with alcohol. Al-
cohol degraded performance in each of the
other three combinations of flight sequence
TABLE 2
and alcohol order.
Average Scores for Overall Pilot Performance, Task Analysis of the multiplicative model scores
Segments, and Performance Aspects Using the also found significantly poorer overall perfor-
Value Additive Model
mance with alcohol, F(1,8) = 9.15, p < 0.02.
Alcohol No Alcohol A significant interaction involving alcohol,
alcohol order, and flight sequence, F(1,8) =
Overall Pilot
Performance 56.89 62.01 15.44, P < 0.01, was also obtained. Here, as
VOR Tracking 62.28 68.40 with the additive model, the only combina-
VC 61.09 66.13
tion of alcohol order and flight sequence that
HC 62.36 69.30
CD 66.85 74.75 resulted in poorer performance under no-al-
Vectoring 64.96 68.56 cohol performance was when the more diffi-
VC 68.78 70.69
cult flight was flown under the no-alcohol
HC 57.05 61.23
CD 73.44 82.08 condition on the first day.
Descent 42.52 47.02 Model-derived performance scores for each
VC 21.09 20.77
task segment were also analyzed. With the
HC 62.36 71.13
CD 68.73 79.69 additive model, significant alcohol perfor-
Collision Avoidance 57.93 64.08 mance decrements were found for both VOR
VC 44.24 48.24
Tracking, F(1,8) = 11.17,p < 0.02, and Colli-
HC 55.52 59.55
CD 79.47 91.33 sion Avoidance, F(1,8) = 6.88, p < 0.05. The
only other significant effects involving alco-
VC = Vertical Control; HC = Horizontal Control; CD = Cockpit
Duties hol involved the Collision Avoidance task
302-June 1988
segment, in which an alcohol administration
order effect. F(1,8) = 7.23. P < 0.05, and an
Alcohol x Alcohol Order interaction, F(1,8)
= 5.60, p < 0.025. were found.
Using the multiplicative model, a signifi-
cant alcohol main-effect decrement was
found only for VOR Tracking, F(1,8) = 18.24,
P < 0.005. There was a flight sequence effect
for that task segment also, F(1.8) = 7.04, P <
0.05, and an Alcohol x Alcohol Order x
Flight Sequence interaction that was signifi-
cant for the Collision Avoidance task seg-
ment,F(1,8) = 12.26,p < 0.01. As in the other
cases in which such an interaction was found,
the alcohol effect was related to the difficulty
level of the flight paired with alcohol and
whether the alcohol was administered on
Day 1 or Day 2.
Further analyses were carried out in order
to determine which performance aspects ac-
counted for the significant main effect of al-
cohol found for VOR Tracking. Although per-
formance for all three aspects was poorer
under the· alcohol condi tion, as shown in
Table 2, the only significant difference was in
Vertical Control, F(1,ll) = 9.48, p < 0.02.
A significant main effect for the Collision
Avoidance task segment was also evident. but
only with the additive model. Analysis of the
performance aspect scores for this task seg-
ment found a significant main effect for alco-
hol only for Cockpit Duties, F(1,8) = 10.55, p
< 0.02. Again, Table 2 shows somewhat
poorer performance with alcohol for the
other performance aspects, but the differ-
ences were not significant.
It should be noted that in both of these task
segments. the performance aspect that
showed a significant alcohol effect was one
other than the aspect that could be consid-
ered the primary flight task. Significant alco-
hol effects were found in Vertical Control for
the VOR Tracking task segment. in which the
primary task presumably was tracking the
HUMAN FACTORS
VOR radial. and in Cockpit Duties for the
Collision Avoidance task segment. in which
the primary task should have been execution
of a vertical evasive maneuver. In both cases
it appears that when alcohol was involved,
the pilots were less likely to be attentive to
important secondary tasks.
Another analysis of the effects of alcohol
upon flight performance was carried out by
determining the number of 5-s intervals for
each of the task segments in which one or
more of the flight parameters constituting
Vertical or Horizontal Control performance
aspects exceeded the "safe" limits defined by
the flight instructors. There were signifi-
cantly more violations of "safe" vertical con-
trol limits during VOR Tracking. F(1,8) =
9.86, P < 0.02, which is consistent with the
previous data indicating that the subjects
under the alcohol condition were more likely
to neglect vertical control and, presumably,
focus their attention on minimizing CDI
error during this task segment.
A question of interest is the degree to
which the findings of the study would have
been different had the multiattribute model
of pilot performance not been developed and
used in the data analysis. Accordingly, alti-
tude deviations. CDI errors, and scanning
and target responses were also analyzed as
unidimensional performance measures.
Altitude root mean square (RMS) error did
show a significant alcohol decrement, F(1,8)
= 6.07, p < 0.05, as well as an Alcohol x Al-
cohol Order interaction. F(1.8) = 7.58, p <
0.05. Neither the range nor SD of the altitude
measures showed an alcohol effect. nor did
the number of altitude deviations greater
than 100 ft (25.4 m). The SDs of cm measures
were greater with alcohol, F(1,8) = 5.41, p <
0.05, although neither RMS nor mean abso-
lute errors showed a significant alcohol ef-
fect. Scanning and target response measures
analyzed included the duration and number
ALCOHOL AND PILOT PERFORMANCE
of scans when a target did not appear, the re-
action time between the appearance of a tar-
get and its detection, the time between target
detection and a significant control input, and
the average altitude change in response to a
looming target. In all instances the subjects'
performance was poorer with alcohol, but
the differences were not statistically signifi-
cant. Five mistakes were made in response to
a looming target; there were three cases of
failure to respond, and in two cases the direc-
tion of altitude change was incorrect. Four of
the five mistakes were made under the alco-
hol condition, and one nonresponse was
made without alcohol.
DISCUSSION
It is clear that use of the model provided
advantages in examining the effects of alco-
hol on simulator flight performance. First,
the model provided a task analysis function
in that the task segments were identified as
important components of the flight scenario
and thus permitted the examination of alco-
hol's effects on each separately. Further, the
task segments were multidimensional in na-
ture, so that a penalty was incurred if one
aspect of flight performance was neglected in
order to focus attention on another perfor-
mance aspect. This characteristic of the mul-
tidimensional model approach is illustrated
by the analyses of the task segments in which
significant alcohol effects were found. Signif-
icant alcohol effects were found only in Verti-
cal Control during the VOR Tracking task
segment and in Cockpit Duties during the
Collision Avoidance task segment, rather
than in Horizontal Control and Vertical Con-
trol, respectively, as might have been ex-
pected. These findings indicate that under
the alcohol condition, the pilots were concen-
trating on what appeared to be the primary
task during those segments of the flight while
June 1988-303
showing relative neglect of other flight
duties.
A model such as that used in the present
study should be of value in any situation in
which some compensation for the detrimen-
tal effects of a factor can occur through at-
tention allocation, and in training situations
in which a good performance score should re-
quire continued attention to all flight tasks.
Use of such a model does not, of course, pre-
clude examination of specific response mea-
sures that are of interest. Rather, it provides
a specific framework within which to exam-
ine rationally derived components of the pi-
loting task in a manner that otherwise is not
possible.
A number of the analyses involving model
scores showed the alcohol variable interact-
ing with the order of alcohol presentation
and the sequence of the two flights. This
partly reflects the fact that despite the appar-
ent similarity of the two flights, one was con-
siderably more difficult. Nevertheless, alco-
hol significantly affected both overall pilot
performance and VOR Tracking as evaluated
by either model and was also a significant
factor for Collision Avoidance in the case of
the additive model. It should be noted that
these alcohol effects were present with nor-
mal cross-country flight scenarios that did
not involve unexpected or unusual tasks or
procedural requirements, when the alcohol
effects might be expected to be most appar-
ent.
The subjects in this study were relatively
low-time pilots, and the question arises as to
whether or not experience might mitigate al-
cohol's effects on pilot performance. Appar-
ently it would be unwise to assume that this
would be the case. Even if experience enabled
a pilot to compensate to some degree for al-
cohol's effects, those with more experience
could still be at increased risk given that
their flying may involve equipment or situa-
304-June 1988
tions that impose much greater task de-
mands. It should be pointed out that the Bill-
ings et al. (1972) study found that even in a
simple aircraft, experienced as well as rela-
tively inexperienced pilots increased their
number of major procedural errors at all BAC
values tested. Alcohol-related accident statis-
tics (National Transportation Safety Board,
1985) also indicate that experience does not
afford protection from the fatal effects of al-
cohol.
Decrements in pilot performance such as
were found in this study may not routinely
place an aircraft in imminent risk of an acci-
dent, but the margin of safety would be re-
duced, and under circumstances of increased
demands on the pilot, it is highly likely that
the probability of an accident would be in-
creased significantly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Grant AA6093 from the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The
authors thank Hona Lee Harrington for her help in carry-
ing out the study, and Tanya Cunningham and Neil Rob-
inson for serving as flight instructor-consultants during
development of the multiattribute model.
REFERENCES
Aksnes, E. G. (1954). Effects of small dosages of alcohol
upon performance in a Link trainer. Journal of Avia-
tion Medicine, 25(6), 680-688.
HUMAN FACTORS
Billings, C. E., Wick, R. L., Gerke, R. J., and Chase, R. C.
(1972, January). The effects of alcohol on pilot perfor-
mance during instrument flight (Report No. FAA-AM-
72-4). Oklahoma City: Civil Aeromedical Institute.
Henry, P.H., Flueck, J.A., Sanford, J.F., Keiser, H.N.,
McNee, R. C., Walter, W. H., Webster, K. H., Hartman,
B. 0., and Lancaster, M. C. (1974). Assessment of per-
formance in a Link-GAT-I flight simulator at three al-
cohol dose levels. Aerospace Medicine, 45, 33-44.
Hyman, F. C., Taylor, H. L., Weller, M. H., and Nagel, R. J.
(1986, April). Effects of alcohol on flight simulator and
Sternberg memory search task performance. Paper pre-
sented at the 57th Annual Scientific Meeting of the
Aerospace Medical Association, Nashville, TN.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multi-
ple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New
York: Wiley.
Lentz, S. K., and Rundell, O. H. (1976). Sustained control
of blood alcohol levels. Alcohol Technical Reports, 5(2),
33-36.
Mundt, J. C., and Ross, L. E. (1987). Multiattribute evalua-
tion of simulator flight performance in research and
training. In Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 151-157). Co-
lumbus: Department of Aviation, Ohio State Univer-
sity.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1984). Safety
study.' Statistical review of alcohol-involved aviation ac-
cidents (Report No. NTSB/SS84/93). Washington, DC:
Author.
Ross, L. E., and Mundt, J. C. (1986). Effects of a low blood
alcohol level on pilot performance. In Proceedings of
the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society
(pp. 1182-1186). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors
Society.
von Winterfeldt, D., and Edwards, W. (1986). Decision
analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.