Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:08:32.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of conflict resolution automation and vertical situation display for on-ground air traffic control operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2021

Fitri Trapsilawati Open the ORCID record for Fitri Trapsilawati [Opens in a new window] ,
Chun-Hsien Chen ,
Chris D. Wickens  and
Xingda Qu
Fitri Trapsilawati
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Chun-Hsien Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Chris D. Wickens
Affiliation:
Colorado State University and Alion Science and Technology, Louisville, CO, USA.
Xingda Qu
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Factors and Ergonomics, College of Mechatronics and Control Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both conflict resolution aid (CRA) and vertical situation display (VSD) systems may contribute to air traffic control (ATC) operations. However, their effectiveness still needs to be examined before being widely adopted in ATC facilities. This study aims to examine empirically the use of CRA and VSD as well as the systems’ interaction in ATC operations. It was found that CRA benefited conflict resolution performance by 13⋅7% and lowered workload by 46⋅4% compared with manually performing the task. The VSD could also reduce the air traffic controllers’ (ATCOs) workload and improve their situation awareness. Ultimately, when the first CRA failure occurred, the situation awareness supported by VSD offset the performance decrements by 30%. The findings from this study demonstrate that integrating VSD with CRA would benefit ATC operations, regardless of the CRA's imperfection.

Keywords

automationair traffic controlconflict resolutionvertical displaytransparency
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 619 - 632
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, A. L., Wickens, C. D. and Merwin, D. H. (2005). Perspective and coplanar cockpit displays of traffic information: Implications for maneuver choice, flight safety, and mental workload. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corver, S. C., Unger, D. and Grote, G. (2016). Predicting air traffic controller workload trajectory uncertainty as the moderator of the indirect effect of traffic density on controller workload through traffic conflict. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(4), 560–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehn, D., Lowe, C. and Hill, C. (2007). First ATC Support Tools Implementation (FASTI): Cognitive Task Analysis. Brussels: EUROCONTROL. Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/article/content/documents/nm/fasti-hf-cognitive-task-analysis2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Durso, F. T., Dattel, A. R., Banbury, S. and Tremblay, S. (2004). SPAM: The real-time assessment of SA. In Banbury, S., Tremblay, S. (eds.). A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application. (Vol. 1, 137–154). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Durso, F. T., Bleckley, M. L. and Dattel, A. R. (2006). Does situation awareness add to the validity of cognitive tests? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(4), 721–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrmanntraut, R. (2010). Full automation of air traffic management in high complexity airspace. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
Erzberger, H. (2006). Automated Conflict Resolution for Air Traffic Control. Paper Presented at the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences for the Society of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3–8 September. Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
EUROCONTROL. (2008). Wheelie – Advanced Display Filtering Technique (Human Factors Experiment). Brussel: EUROCONTROL. Available at: http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/library/005_WHEELIE_advanced_display_filtering.pdf.Google Scholar
Hart, S. G. and Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, 1(3), 139–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, K. A. and Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 407–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IATA. (2016). Demand for air travel in 2015 surges to strongest result in five years. Available at: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-02-04-01.aspx.Google Scholar
Jorna, P. G. A. M., Pavet, D., van Blanken, M. and Pichancourt, I. (1999). PHARE Ground Human Machine Interface (GHMI) Project: Summary Report. Brussels: EUROCONTROL. Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/phare/gallery/content/public/documents/99-70-02ghmi.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, B. and Flynn, M. (2002). CORA 2 Investigating Air Traffic Controller Conflict Resolution Strategies. Brussels: EUROCONTROL. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=B0A071A8FA6B6065572B8DA09572824B?doi=10.1.1.80.2523&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar
Kuchar, J. K. and Yang, L. C. (2000). A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1(4), 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M. (2009). Tactical Controller Tool Real Time Simulation Final Report , Vol. 3. UK: EUROCONTROL. Available at: http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/article/content/documents/nm/fasti-tct-rts-2009.pdf.Google Scholar
Martin, C. and Imbert, J–P. (2012). Introduction of a More Automated Environment in En-Route Air Traffic Control. Paper Presented at the Second SESAR Innovation Days, 27–29 November. Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
Mercado, J., Rupp, M., Chen, J., Barnes, M., Barber, D. and Procci, K. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzger, U. and Parasuraman, R. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 47(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, D. C. (2013). Design and Analysis of Experiments. 8th Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. D., Albert, H. A., Chen, J. M. and Anderson, G. G. (2012). The Role of Mental Computations in Current and Future En Route Air Traffic Control. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 56th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, A. and Mogford, R. H. (2003). Identifying Controller Strategies that Support the ‘Picture’. Paper Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting for the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 13–17 October. Denver, CO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onnasch, L., Wickens, C. D., Li, H. and Manzey, D. (2014). Human task performance consequences of stages and levels of automation an integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56(3), 476–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. and Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and level of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevot, T., Homola, J. R., Martin, L. H., Mercer, J. S. and Cabrall, C. D. (2012). Toward automated air traffic control—investigating a fundamental paradigm shift in human/systems interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantanen, E. M. and Wickens, C. D. (2012). Conflict resolution maneuvers in air traffic control: investigation of operational data. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22, 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovira, E., McGarry, K. and Parasuraman, R. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebok, A. and Wickens, C. D. (2017). Implementing lumberjacks and black swans into model-based tools to support human–automation interaction. Human Factors, 59(2), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SESAR. (2012). SESAR Concept of Operations. SESARJU Report. Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/field_tabs/content/documents/sesar/20070717-sesar-conops.pdf.Google Scholar
SESAR. (2013). Final Project Report on the concept and benefits for improving TP using AOC data: Improved Airline Flight Plan Information into ATC Trajectory Prediction (TP) Tool. SESARJU Report. Available at: http://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/solutions/3_AOC_Data_for_TP_Final_Project_Report.pdf?issuusl=ignore.Google Scholar
SESAR. (2015). Automated support for conflict detection, resolution support information and conformance. ESSIP Plan Edition 2015. Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/officialdocuments/reports/atc12-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Shneiderman, S. B. and Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the User Interface. 4th Edition. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., Salas, E. and Hancock, P. A. (2017). State-of-science: situation awareness in individuals, teams and systems. Ergonomics, 60(4), 449–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strybel, T. Z., Vu, K.-P. L., Kraft, J. and Minakata, K. (2008). Assessing the Situation Awareness of Pilots Engaged in Self Spacing. Paper Presented in the Proceedings of the 52th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 22–26 September. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Have, J. M. (1993). The development of the NLR ATC Research Simulator (NARSIM): Design philosophy and potential for ATM research. Simulation Practice and Theory, 1(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapsilawati, F., Qu, X., Wickens, C. D. and Chen, C. H. (2015). Human factors assessment of conflict resolution aid reliability and time pressure in future air traffic control. Ergonomics, 58(6), 897–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trapsilawati, F., Wickens, C. D., Qu, X. and Chen, C. H. (2016a). Benefits of imperfect conflict resolution advisory aids for future air traffic control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(7), 1007–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapsilawati, F., Chen, C. H. and Khoo, L. P. (2016b). An Investigation into Conflict Resolution and Trajectory Prediction Aids for Future Air Traffic Control. Proceedings of the 23th ISPE Inc. International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering, 4–6 October. Brazil: Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, 503–512.Google Scholar
Trapsilawati, F. and Chen, C. H. (2017). Effects of Information Availability on Workload and Situation Awareness in Air Traffic Control. Proceedings of the 24th ISPE Inc. International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering, 10–14 July. Singapore: Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, 21–28.Google Scholar
Trapsilawati, F., Wickens, C. D., Chen, C. H. and Qu, X. (2017). Transparency and Conflict Resolution Automation Reliability in Air Traffic Control. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium of Aviation Psychology, 8–11 May. Dayton, OH, USA.Google Scholar
Vu, K.-P. L., Strybel, T. Z., Battiste, V., Vernol, L. J., Dao, A.-Q. V., Brandt, S., Ligda, S., et al. (2012). Pilot task performance in trajectory-based operations under concepts of operation that vary separation responsibility across pilots, air traffic controllers, and automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C. D. and Dixon, S. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C. D., Gempler, K. and Morphew, M. E. (2000). Workload and reliability of predictor displays in aircraft traffic avoidance. Transportation Human Factors, 2(2), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banburry, S. and Parasuraman, R. (2013). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance 4th Edition. New Jersey, USA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Woods, D. D. (1984). Visual momentum: a concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21(3), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, S., Wickens, C. D., Helander, M. and Laberge, J. C. (2015). Predictive displays for process-control schematic interface. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(1), 110–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, M., Brookhuis, K., Wickens, C. D. and Hancock, P. (2015). State of the science in mental workload. Ergonomics, 58, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed