_Article_  
Pilots' Performance and Workload Assessment:  
Transition from Analogue to Glass-Cockpit  
Vladimir [PERSON]  
deck. Pilots' efforts to effectively obtain information was hindered by seemingly random location of instruments [1]. Additionally, the lack of standard instrument layout made transition between different types of aircraft very difficult [2; 3]. Each aircraft manufacturer and even some aircraft operators appeared to have their own ideas of the best instrument layout [4; 5; 6]. Although, the need for a standardized ergonomic panel arrangement was well recognized during World War Two [3], it was not until 1957 that a common standard was adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board. The new amendment to 14 CFR Part 4b required all transport category aircraft to feature a \"Basic T\" arrangement of four instruments which present basic information as to airspeed, attitude, altitude, and direction of flight. This requirement remains unchanged and the exact same wording appears in the current regulation (14 CFR part 25 S25.1321 and CS 25.1321). Although, the location of indicators follows the same layout on both classic panels and glass cockpit panels, the visualisation of flight information is different. Glass cockpit panels feature vertical moving tapes for airspeed and altitude instead of standalone round dials. Visualisation of direction of flight on electronic displays differs among equipment manufactures: a depiction of a classic horizontal situation indicator (original Garmin G1000, Garmin Ltd., Olathe, KS, USA; Avidyne Entegra, Avidyne Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA ), a section of a compass rose (recent Boeing models, The Boeing Company, Chicago, IL, USA ), horizontal moving tape (present Airbus models, Airbus SE, Toulouse, France ) or even a moving map with course guidance (Garmin G1000 NXi, Boeing 787, Garmin Ltd., Olathe, KS, USA ). Pilots ability to obtain information from instruments may be affected by the type of visualisation. Pilots are trained to utilize the \"Basic T\" layout and develop an effective instrument scan technique. Identical instrument scan patterns are trained for both classic panels and glass cockpits [7; 8]. However, by comparing eye tracking studies on classic panels [9; 10; 11] and recent research on glass cockpit aircraft [12; 13; 14], different instrument scan techniques are revealed for each type of equipment. Eye tracking studies focus on the role of central vision and the role of peripheral vision is not thoroughly examined [15]. Peripheral vision can be particularly important on large modern displays with the artificial horizon extending through airspeed and altitude tapes to the edges of the screen (e.g., Garmin G1000, Honeywell Aspen, Honeywell International Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA, Boeing 787 and 737 MAX ). Such a design may also affect pilots' perception and require adjustments to instrument scan. Much attention is given to development of training syllabi for experienced pilots transitioning to modern aircraft [16] and full utilization of glass cockpit aircraft in initial training [17; 18]. However, the effects of transition from analog instruments to glass cockpit panels during initial pilot training remain largely unexplored. One notable exception is study on performance of novices in simulated training [19]. In the study, 62 psychology students with no previous flight training experience received short theoretical instruction and performed three training flights in either a traditional display cockpit or a glass display cockpit. Flight performance was then measured in a test flight using either the same or different cockpit display. The results revealed consistently poorer performance on the test flight for participants using the glass cockpit compared to the traditional cockpit. This study demonstrated glass cockpits may present some difficulties for pilots and shows that further research in an environment closely representing flight training may be more informative. [PERSON] et al.