In this article, we compare and evaluate two methods of procedure design using an aircraft go-around (GA) as a test scenario. We contrast the manufacturer specified, crew-centric procedure with a redesigned process-centred perspective. We test the claim that the process-centred design can take into account situational factors more effectively and generate less workload. We report a heuristic assessment of the new procedure against design guidelines and an evaluation in a full-flight simulator at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) using qualified airline pilots to assess workload and performance. Both the manufacturer specified and new procedure were employed in three GA scenarios representative of increasing operational complexity. Results demonstrate an advantage for the new procedure design in the most complex scenario. The new, process-based procedure can reduce reported crew workload and improve response flexibility in more complex scenarios, improving rated performance. This study suggests that the process-based account in procedure design has advantages when compared to the flight crew-centric approach. These advantages include enhanced flexibility, robustness and improved crew performance during GA.

在本文中，我们比较和评估使用飞机复飞 (GA) 作为测试场景的两种程序设计方法。我们将制造商指定的以工作人员为中心的程序与重新设计的以流程为中心的视角进行了对比。我们测试了以流程为中心的设计可以更有效地考虑情境因素并产生更少工作量的说法。我们报告了根据设计指南对新程序的启发式评估，以及在德国航空航天中心 (DLR) 的全飞行模拟器中使用合格的航空公司飞行员评估工作负荷和性能的评估。制造商指定的程序和新程序都被用于三个代表日益增加的操作复杂性的 GA 场景。结果表明，新程序设计在最复杂的情​​况下具有优势。新的，基于流程的程序可以减少报告的机组工作量并提高更复杂场景中的响应灵活性，从而提高额定性能。这项研究表明，与以飞行机组为中心的方法相比，程序设计中基于过程的帐户具有优势。这些优势包括在 GA 期间增强的灵活性、稳健性和改进的机组性能。