Pilot Situation Awareness and its Implications for Single Pilot Operations: Analysis of a Human-in-the-Loop Study

AbstractIn 2012, NASA began exploring the feasibility of single pilot/reduced crew operations in the context of scheduled air carrier operations. The current study examined how important it was for ground-based personnel providing support to single piloted aircraft (ground operators) to have opportunities to acquire situation awareness (SA) prior to being called on to assist an aircraft. We looked at two distinct concepts of operation, which varied in how much information was available to ground operators prior to being called on to assist a critical event (no vs. some Situation Preview). Thirty-five commercial pilots participated in the current study. Results suggested that a ground operators’ lack of initial SA when called on for dedicated assistance is not an issue, at least when the ground operator station displays environmental and systems data which are important to gaining overall SA of the specified aircraft. With appropriate displays, ground operators were able to provide immediate assistance, even if they had minimal SA prior to getting a request

Application of Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Patterns to Reduce Crew Operations (RCO)

Unmanned aerial systems, advanced cockpits, and air traffic management are all seeing dramatic increases in automation. However, while automation may take on some tasks previously performed by humans, humans will still be required to remain in the system for the foreseeable future. The collaboration between humans and these increasingly autonomous systems will begin to resemble cooperation between teammates, rather than simple task allocation. It is critical to understand this human-autonomy teaming (HAT) to optimize these systems in the future. One methodology to understand HAT is by identifying recurring patterns of HAT that have similar characteristics and solutions. This paper applies a methodology for identifying HAT patterns to an advanced cockpit project

Human Automation Teaming: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Full autonomy seems to be the goal for system developers in almost every area of the economy. However, as we move from automated systems to autonomous systems, designers have needed to insert humans to oversee automation that has traditionally been brittle or incomplete. This creates its own problems as the operator is usually out of the loop when the automation hands over problems that it cannot handle. To better handle these situations, it has been proposed that we develop human automation teams that have shared goals and objectives to support task performance. This paper will describe an initial model of Human Automation Teaming (HAT) which has three elements: transparency, bi-directional communications, and human-directed execution. Transparency in our model is a method for giving insight into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions, bi-directional communication allows the operator to communicate directly with the automation, and finally the automation defers execution to the human. The model was implemented through a number of features on an electronic flight bag (EFB) which are described in the paper. The EFB was installed in a mid-fidelity flight simulator and used by 12 airline pilots to support diversion decisions during off-nominal flight scenarios. Pilots reported that working with the HAT automation made diversion decisions easier and reduced their workload. They also reported that the information provided about diversion airports was similar to what they would receive from ground dispatch, thus making coordination with dispatch easier and less time consuming. These HAT features engender more trust in the automation when appropriate, and less when not, allowing improved supervision of automated functions by flight crews

A Detect and Avoid System in the Context of Multiple-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations

NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration into the National Airspace System (UAS in the NAS) project examines the technical barriers associated with the operation of UAS in civil airspace. For UAS, the removal of the pilot from onboard the aircraft has eliminated the ability of the ground-based pilot in command (PIC) to use out-the-window visual information to make judgements about a potential threat of a loss of well clear with another aircraft. NASA's Phase 1 research supported the development of a Detect and Avoid (DAA) system that supports the ground-based pilot's ability to detect potential traffic conflicts and determine a resolution maneuver, but existing display/alerting requirements did not account for multiple UAS control (1:N). Demands for increased scalability of UAS in the NAS operations are expected to create a need for simultaneous control of UAs, and thus, a new DAA HMI design will likely be necessary. Previous research, however, has found performance degradations as the number of vehicles under operator control has increased. The purpose of the current human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation was to examine the viability of 1:N operations with the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance. Sixteen UAS pilots flew three scenarios with varying number of UAs under their control (1:1, 1:3, 1:5). In addition to their supervisory and sensor mission responsibilities, pilots were to utilize the DAA system to remain DAA well clear (DWC) during scripted conflicts of mixed severity. Measured response times, separation performance, mission task data, and subjective feedback were collected to assess how the multi-UAS control configuration impacted pilots' ability to maintain DAA well clear and perform the mission tasks. Overall, the DAA system proved surprisingly adaptive to multi-UAS control for preventing losses of DAA well clear (LoDWC). The findings suggest that, while multi-UAS operators are able to maintain safe separation (DWC) from other traffic, their ability to efficiently perform missions drastically decreases with their number of controlled vehicles. Pilot feedback indicated that, for this context, the use of automation support tools for completing and managing mission tasks would be appropriate and desired, especially for ensuring efficient use of assets. Finally, human-machine interface (HMI) design considerations for multi-UAS operations are discussed

An Evaluation of Controller and Pilot Performance, Workload and Acceptability under a NextGen Concept for Dynamic Weather Adapted Arrival Routing

In todays terminal operations, controller workload increases and throughput decreases when fixed standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) are impacted by storms. To circumvent this operational constraint, Prete, Krozel, Mitchell, Kim and Zou (2008) proposed to use automation to dynamically adapt arrival and departure routing based on weather predictions. The present study examined this proposal in the context of a NextGen trajectory-based operation concept, focusing on the acceptability and its effect on the controllers ability to manage traffic flows. Six controllers and twelve transport pilots participated in a human-in-the-loop simulation of arrival operations into Louisville International Airport with interval management requirements. Three types of routing structures were used: Static STARs (similar to current routing, which require the trajectories of individual aircraft to be modified to avoid the weather), Dynamic routing (automated adaptive routing around weather), and Dynamic Adjusted routing (automated adaptive routing around weather with aircraft entry time adjusted to account for differences in route length). Spacing Responsibility, whether responsibility for interval management resided with the controllers (as today), or resided with the pilot (who used a flight deck based automated spacing algorithm), was also manipulated. Dynamic routing as a whole was rated superior to static routing, especially by pilots, both in terms of workload reduction and flight path safety. A downside of using dynamic routing was that the paths flown in the dynamic conditions tended to be somewhat longer than the paths flown in the static condition

Multi-UAS HITL: Primary Results & Automation Workshop Summaries

This presentation covers the primary results from a recently completed human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation conducted as part of the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) integration into the NAS (National Airspace System) project. The HITL examined the impact of multiple (simultaneous) UAS control while performing a demanding mission task and managing scripted conflicts. The scripted conflicts were designed to trigger the detect-and-avoid (DAA) system. This was the first time the DAA system as designed as part of the UAS-NAS project has been applied to multi-UAS control. The second part of the presentation briefly summarizes the takeaways from two workshops held on human-automation interaction considerations for UAS integration. NASA co-hosted and participated in both workshops

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Terminal Operations HITL 1B Primary Results

This presentation provides an overview of the primary results from the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project's second Terminal Operations human-in-the-loop simulation. This talk covers the background of this follow-on experiment, which includes an overview of the first Terminal Operations HITL performed by the project. The primary results include a look at the number and durations of detect and avoid (DAA) alerts issued by the two DAA systems under test. It also includes response time metrics and metrics on the ability of the pilot-in-command (PIC) to maintain sufficient separation. Additional interoperability metrics are included to illustrate how pilots interact with the tower controller. Implications and conclusions are covered at the end

A Human-Autonomy Teaming Approach for a Flight-Following Task

Managing aircraft is becoming more complex with increasingly sophisticated automation responsible for more flight tasks. With this increased complexity, it is becoming more difficult for operators to understand what the automation is doing and why. Human involvement with increasingly autonomous systems must adjust to allow for a more dynamic relationship involving cooperation and teamwork. As part of an ongoing project to develop a framework for human-autonomy teaming (HAT) in aviation, a part-task study was conducted to demonstrate, evaluate and refine proposed critical aspects of HAT. These features were built into an automated recommender system on a ground station available from previous studies. Participants performed a flight-following task once with the original ground station (i.e., No HAT condition) and once with the HAT features enabled (i.e., HAT condition). Behavioral and subjective measures were collected; subjective measures are presented here. Overall, participants preferred the ground station with HAT features enabled compared to the station without the HAT features. Participants reported that the HAT displays and automation were preferred for keeping up with operationally important issues. Additionally, participants reported that the HAT displays and automation provided enough situation awareness to complete the task and reduced workload relative to the No HAT baseline

Comparison of Controller and Flight Deck Algorithm Performance During Interval Management with Dynamic Arrival Trees (STARS)

Managing the interval between arrival aircraft is a major part of the en route and TRACON controller s job. In an effort to reduce controller workload and low altitude vectoring, algorithms have been developed to allow pilots to take responsibility for, achieve and maintain proper spacing. Additionally, algorithms have been developed to create dynamic weather-free arrival routes in the presence of convective weather. In a recent study we examined an algorithm to handle dynamic re-routing in the presence of convective weather and two distinct spacing algorithms. The spacing algorithms originated from different core algorithms; both were enhanced with trajectory intent data for the study. These two algorithms were used simultaneously in a human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation where pilots performed weather-impacted arrival operations into Louisville International Airport while also performing interval management (IM) on some trials. The controllers retained responsibility for separation and for managing the en route airspace and some trials managing IM. The goal was a stress test of dynamic arrival algorithms with ground and airborne spacing concepts. The flight deck spacing algorithms or controller managed spacing not only had to be robust to the dynamic nature of aircraft re-routing around weather but also had to be compatible with two alternative algorithms for achieving the spacing goal. Flight deck interval management spacing in this simulation provided a clear reduction in controller workload relative to when controllers were responsible for spacing the aircraft. At the same time, spacing was much less variable with the flight deck automated spacing. Even though the approaches taken by the two spacing algorithms to achieve the interval management goals were slightly different they seem to be simpatico in achieving the interval management goal of 130 sec by the TRACON boundary