臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

飛行是異於人類正常移動方式的三度空間運動，必須全程嚴密管控環境的變化與複雜的操控系統，飛行員在一般的飛行過程中已承受相當的心智負荷，當緊急狀況產生時負荷更鉅，如不能適當的面對，則可能導致飛航事故；由國內、外飛航事故統計資料顯示，在飛行的過程中，以降落時為事故發生的主要階段；因此，探討飛行員於降落階段面對各種環境、突發事件等外在因素，所承受的壓力負荷與個人差異，為本研究之主要目的。
本研究將針對空軍服役中的32位自願參與之飛行員，採3因子二水準固定效應模式設計，藉由飛行模擬器模擬飛行場景，心電圖儀器監測實驗全程之心率變化，就飛行能見度、側風及突發事件等外在因素，分別從飛行員的心率變化與個人主觀填答之NASA工作負荷量表等二項指標，以三因子變異數分析，探討飛行降落階段壓力負荷的差異；並以五大人格特質行為量表，歸納飛行員人格特質傾向，以單因子、二因子變異數分析，探討飛行降落階段的壓力負荷及面對突發事件事，在人格特質上的差異。
研究顯示，於部隊中服役的飛行員人格特質，強勢性與盡責性佔有較大的比例，此種人格特質的飛行員在飛行降落操作及遭遇突發事件時，心智負荷無顯著差異。由NASA工作負荷量表評量結果反映出飛行員在此一操作階段時，努力、心智需求、自我表現為重要的評量向度。就不同環境條件的探討，從NASA工作負荷量表及心率變化比的二項指標的檢驗中，顯示出側風與突發事件為造成飛行員於降落階段時心智負荷差異的主要因素。

Flight is the three-dimensional motion which differs from human normal movement. It must monitor the environment changing and complex flight control system in all the time. The pilot experienced lots of mental workload in the routine flight. Upon emergency situation, the load became more and more. If the pilot could not handle properly, it would cause the flight accident. The domestic and foreign statistic data indicated that landing is the major phase which occurs an accident during the flight. So, the purpose in this study is to research 1) the pilot encounter factor (various environments, sudden event etc.) during landing phase, 2) the pilot bear the stress load and 3) personal difference.
This study focused thirty two male pilots volunteered on the Air Force in-service. First, adopt 3 factor fixed effects model design, the environmental factors including visibility, crosswind and unexpected events by means of the simulator to duplicate flight situation. Electrocardiogram was recorded continuously during the experiment. And, using both physiological and multidimensional subjective-ratings measurements (heart rate and NASA Task Load Index, respectively), it explored the difference about the stress load during landing phase with three-way analysis of variance model. Second, it concluded the pilots’ personality traits trend according to Big-Five personality trait model and analyzed the stress load and personality traits difference during landing phase with one-way and two-way analysis of variance model.
This result presented that Surgency and Conscientiousness are the high ratio in the service pilot personality traits. When encountering the sudden event and landing the operation, the pilots have the Surgency and Conscientiousness traits were no significance on mental workload. Effort, mental demand, and performance are valuably the important results in the NASA Task Load Index assessment. It performed the landing operation using Instrument Landing System during the landing phase, and crosswind and sudden event would be the main effect which caused the pilot mental workload difference in NASA Task Load Index and heart rate.

中文摘要......................................................................I
英文摘要.....................................................................II
誌　 謝.......................................................................III
目　 錄......................................................................IV
表 目 錄.....................................................................VI
圖 目 錄...................................................................VIII
第一章　緒論..............................................................1
　第一節　研究動機..................................................1
　第二節　研究目的..................................................4
　第三節　研究限制..................................................5
　第四節　研究流程..................................................5
第二章　文獻回顧......................................................7
　第一節　壓力的概念..............................................7
　第二節　心智負荷.................................................13
　第三節　飛行壓力.................................................18
　第四節　人格特質.................................................20
第三章　研究方法.....................................................26
　第一節　研究架構與假設.....................................26
　第二節　受測者.....................................................28
　第三節　實驗設計.................................................29
　第四節　實驗設備.................................................33
　第五節　實驗程序.................................................36
　第六節　資料分析方法.........................................38
第四章　資料分析與結果.........................................40
　第一節　實驗資料.................................................40
　第二節　信度量測.................................................44
　第三節　假設檢驗.................................................45
第五章　結論與建議.................................................61
　第一節　結論.........................................................61
　第二節　建議.........................................................62
參考文獻.....................................................................64
中文部份.....................................................................64
英文部分.....................................................................65
附錄一　人格特質問卷.............................................68
附錄二　NASA-TLX評量表......................................70

中文部份
行政院飛航安全委員網站，http://www.asc.gov.tw。(94年4月15日)
江學華(民92)，國籍飛航機師組織文化、人格特質與飛航安全績效之關係研究，國立成功大學工業管理研究所碩士論文。
江學華、林正忠(民94)，探討飛航組織與安績效之關係，空軍學術月刊，576: 72-91。
李再長、李俊杰、曾雅芬(民94)，大型企業組織生涯管理、個人生涯規劃、個人人格特質、工作滿意度之關連研究，人力資源管理學報，5(1): 53-76。
李再長、黃雪玲、李永輝、王明揚(民94)，人因工程，台北：華泰文化事業公司。
李青芳、李雅婷、趙慕芳編譯，組織行為學(Robbins, S. P., 2001. Organizational Behavior. 9d ED.)，台北：華泰文化事業公司。
陳木炯(民91)，台灣醫師心智負荷量表之發展與建立，中國醫藥學院醫務管理研究所碩士論文。
陸洛(民86)，工作壓力的歷程：理論與研究的對話，中華心理衛生學刊，10(4): 19-51。
程千芳(民91)，認識飛航壓力，空軍學術月刊，536: 63-74。
程千芳(民92)，揭開理想飛行員人格之面紗，航空醫學暨科學期刊，17(1): 3-13。
程千芳、李文進、陳欣進(民90)，初階飛訓生人格特質與其飛行訓練表現之關係，應用心理研究，12: 221-243。
張有恆(民94)，飛航安全管理，台北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
張紹勳、張紹評、林秀娟(民89)，SPSS FOR WINDOWS統計分析-初等統計與高等統計，台北：松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
黃雪玲(民83)，人機系統中動態工作配置之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告: NSC82-0115-E007-300。
葉重新(民93)，心理學，台北：心理出版社股份有限公司。
黃堅厚(民88)，人格心理學，台北：心理出版社股份有限公司。
黎正中、陳源樹編譯，實驗設計與分析(Montgomery, D. C., 2001. Design and Analysis of Experiment. 5dED.)，台北：高立圖書有限公司。
魏楞傑(民90)，地面飛航－模擬機淺談，空軍學術月刊，531: 46-57。
蕭鵬卿、湯玉英(民93)，壓力概念分析，護理雜誌，51(3): 71-75。
英文部分
Benbassat, D. & Abramson, C. (2002). Landing flare accident reports and pilot perception analysis. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(2): 137–152.
Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, survice lingth and job strain, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(2): 279-302.
Byrdorf, P.(1998). Military Pilot Selection. In Klaus-Martin Goeters (ET), Aviation Psychology: A Science and Profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Carlisle, D. (2001). Pilot stress and what to do about it. Business & Commercial Aviation, 89(5): 92.
Damitz, M., Manzey, D., Kleinmann, M. & Severin, K. (2003). Assessment center for pilot selection: Construct and criterion validity and the impact of assessor type. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(2): 193-212.
Fredericks, T. K., Choi, S. D., Hart, J., Butt, S. E. & Mital, A. (2005). An investigation of myocardial aerobic capacity as a measure of both physical and cognitive workloads. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(12): 1097-1107.
Heuser, I. & Lammers, C. H. (2003). Stress and the brain. Neurobiology of Aging, 24: S69–S76.
Ivancevich, J. M. & Matteson, M. T. (1984). A type A-B person-work environment interaction model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37(7): 491-513.
Iwanaga, M., Yokoyama, H. & Seiwa, H. (2000). Effects of personal responsibility and latitude for Type A and B individuals on psychological and physiological stress responses. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7(3): 204-215.
King, R. E., McGlohn, S. E. & Retzlaff, P. D. (1997). Female united states air force pilot personality: The new right stuff. Military Medicine, 162(10): 695-697.
Lee, Y. H. & Liu, B. S. (2003). In flight workload assessment: Comparison of subjective and physiological measurements. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 74(10): 1078-1084.
Lin, Y. L. & Hwang, S. L. (1992). The application of the loglinear model to quantify human errors. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 37(2): 157-165.
Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Minnesota: Pre-Press Co., Inc.
Luximon, A. & Goonetilleke, S. R. (2001). Simplified subjective workload assessment technique. Ergonomics, 44(3): 229-243.
Martin, R. & Wall, T. D. (1989). Attentional demand and cost responsibility as stressors in shopfloor jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 69-86.
Martin, T. N. ＆ Schermerhorn, J. R. (1983). Work and nonwork influence on health: A research agenda using inability to leave as a critical variable, Academy of Management Review, 8(4): 650-659.
Mendoza, E. & Carballo, G. (1998). Acoustic analysis of induced vocal stress by means of cognitive workload tasks. Journal of Voice, 12(3): 263-273.
Myrtek, M., Fichtler, A., Strittmatter, M. & Brügner, G.(1999). Stress and strain of blue and white collar workers during work and leisure time: Results of psychophysiological and behavioral monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 30(4): 341-351.
Park, J., Kim, J. & Jung, W. (2004). Comparing the complexity of procedural steps with the operators’ performance observed under stressful conditions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 83(1): 79–91.
Prince, C. & Salas, E. (1997). Situation assessment for routine flight and decision making. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1(4): 315-324.
Roscoe, A. H. (1993). Heart rate as a psychophysiological measure for in-flight workload assessment. Ergonomics, 36(9): 1055–1062.
Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J. & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1): 61-86.
Sohn, S. Y. & Jo, Y. K. (2003). A study on the student pilot’s mental workload due to personality types of both instructor and student. Ergonomics, 46(15): 1566-1577.
Svensson, E., Angelborg-Thanderz, M., Sjőberg, L. & Olsson, S. (1997). Information complexity-mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3): 362-380.
Veltman, J. A. & Gaillard, A. W. K. (1998). Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty. Ergonomics, 41(5): 656-669.
Veltman, J. A. & Gaillard, A. W. K. (1996). Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biological Psychology, 42(3): 323-342.
Wiggins, M. W. & O’Hare, D. (2003). Expert and novice pilot perceptions of static in-flight images of weather. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(2): 173-187.