25 research outputs found

    Learning from Automation Surprises and "Going Sour" Accidents: Progress on Human-Centered Automation

    Get PDF
    Advances in technology and new levels of automation on commercial jet transports has had many effects. There have been positive effects from both an economic and a safety point of view. The technology changes on the flight deck also have had reverberating effects on many other aspects of the aviation system and different aspects of human performance. Operational experience, research investigations, incidents, and occasionally accidents have shown that new and sometimes surprising problems have arisen as well. What are these problems with cockpit automation, and what should we learn from them? Do they represent over-automation or human error? Or instead perhaps there is a third possibility - they represent coordination breakdowns between operators and the automation? Are the problems just a series of small independent glitches revealed by specific accidents or near misses? Do these glitches represent a few small areas where there are cracks to be patched in what is otherwise a record of outstanding designs and systems? Or do these problems provide us with evidence about deeper factors that we need to address if we are to maintain and improve aviation safety in a changing world? How do the reverberations of technology change on the flight deck provide insight into generic issues about developing human-centered technologies and systems (Winograd and Woods, 1997)? Based on a series of investigations of pilot interaction with cockpit automation (Sarter and Woods, 1992; 1994; 1995; 1997a, 1997 b), supplemented by surveys, operational experience and incident data from other studies (e.g., Degani et al., 1995; Eldredge et al., 1991; Tenney et al., 1995; Wiener, 1989), we too have found that the problems that surround crew interaction with automation are more than a series of individual glitches. These difficulties are symptoms that indicate deeper patterns and phenomena concerning human-machine cooperation and paths towards disaster. In addition, we find the same kinds of patterns behind results from studies of physician interaction with computer-based systems in critical care medicine (e.g., Moll van Charante et al., 1993; Obradovich and Woods, 1996; Cook and Woods, 1996). Many of the results and implications of this kind of research are synthesized and discussed in two comprehensive volumes, Billings (1996) and Woods et al. (1994). This paper summarizes the pattern that has emerged from our research, related research, incident reports, and accident investigations. It uses this new understanding of why problems arise to point to new investment strategies that can help us deal with the perceived "human error" problem, make automation more of a team player, and maintain and improve safety

    Beyond Automation Surprises: A Simulator Study of Disturbance Management on Highly Automated Flight Decks

    Get PDF
    Error prevention alone will never be sufficient for improving safety in complex high-risk systems, such as aviation. This approach needs to be combined with better support for error and disturbance management which, in turn, requires an improved understanding of current strategies for coping with errors and the resulting disturbances to the flight. The present research has sought systematic empirical evidence to expand our understanding of the disturbance management process on modern flight decks. A simulator study was conducted with twelve B747-400 airline pilots in order to examine (the effectiveness of) their strategies for diagnosing and recovering from disturbances, and the impact of current automation design on these processes. Pilots flew a one-hour scenario (with a confederate copilot) which contained challenging events that probed pilots’ knowledge of, and proficiency in, using the autoflight system. A process tracing methodology was used to analyze and identify patterns in strategies across pilots. Overall, pilots completed the scenario successfully but varied considerably in how they coped with disturbances to their flight path. Our results show that aspects of feedback design delayed the detection, and thus escalated the severity, of a disturbance. Diagnostic episodes were rare due to pilots’ knowledge gaps as well as timecriticality. Our findings can inform the development of design and training solutions to observed difficulties with error and disturbance management in a variety of domains

    PROCEEDmGS of the HUU4NFACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001 SUPPORTING TIMESHARING AND INTERRUPTION MANAGEMENT THROUGH MULTIMODAL INFORMATION PRESENTATION

    No full text
    Operators in complex event-driven domains often need to perform multiple concurrent tasks and handle competing attentional demands, such as interruptions by other human or machine agents. This study examined the effectiveness of distributing tasks across various sensory channels and presenting information on the nature of an interruption task to support timesharing and attention management. Participants performed a visually demanding simulated Air Traffic Control (ATC) task involving Data Link communication. At times, an interruption task was introduced, which consisted of counting subsets of signals that were presented in visual, auditory, or tactile form. Half of the subjects automatically received information on the modality and urgency of these pending interruption tasks whereas the other participants had the option to request this information. Within-subject variables in this study included ATC-related workload and the frequency and priority of interruption tasks. High-priority tasks had to be performed immediately whereas low-priority tasks could be delayed for up to two minutes. The results show that information about the nature of pending tasks supported participants in scheduling and timesharing more effectively. They were able to avoid intramodal interference and scanning costs associated with performing the ATC task concurrently with a visual interruption task. Crossmodal interference was lowest for auditory interruption tasks. Overall, these findings illustrate the benefits of multimodal information presentation and more informative interruption signals

    Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks

    No full text
    Operators in complex event-driven domains must coordinate competing attentional demands in the form of multiple tasks and interactions. This study examined the extent to which this requirement can be supported more effectively through informative interruption cueing (in this case, partial information about the nature of pending tasks). The 48 participants performed a visually demanding air traffic control (ATC) task. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups that differed in the availability of information (not available, available upon request, available automatically) about the urgency and modality of pending interruption tasks. Within-subject variables included ATC-related workload and the modality, frequency, and priority of interruption tasks. The results show that advance knowledge about the nature of pending tasks led participants to delay visual interruption tasks the longest, which allowed them to avoid intramodal interference and scanning costs associated with performing these tasks concurrently with ATC tasks. The 3 experimental groups did not differ significantly in terms of their interruption task performance; however, the group that automatically received task-related information showed better ATC performance, thus experiencing a net performance gain. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of interfaces in support of attention and interruption management in a wide range of event-driven environments
    corecore