A consortium of government, industry and academia is currently working to establish minimum operational performance standards for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Control and Communications (C2) systems in order to enable broader integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). One subset of these performance standards will need to address the DAA display requirements that support an acceptable level of pilot performance. From a pilot's perspective, the DAA task is the maintenance of self separation and collision avoidance from other aircraft, utilizing the available information and controls within the Ground Control Station (GCS), including the DAA display. The pilot-in-the-loop DAA task requires the pilot to carry out three major functions: 1) detect a potential threat, 2) determine an appropriate resolution maneuver, and 3) execute that resolution maneuver via the GCS control and navigation interface(s). The purpose of the present study was to examine two main questions with respect to DAA display considerations that could impact pilots' ability to maintain well clear from other aircraft. First, what is the effect of a minimum (or basic) information display compared to an advanced information display on pilot performance? Second, what is the effect of display location on UAS pilot performance? Two levels of information level (basic, advanced) were compared across two levels of display location (standalone, integrated), for a total of four displays. The authors propose an eight-stage pilot-DAA interaction timeline from which several pilot response time metrics can be extracted. These metrics were compared across the four display conditions. The results indicate that the advanced displays had faster overall response times compared to the basic displays, however, there were no significant differences between the standalone and integrated displays. Implications of the findings on understanding pilot performance on the DAA task, the development of DAA display performance standards, as well as the need for future research are discussed.

We studied the transparency of automated tools used during emergency operations in commercial aviation. Transparency (operationalized as increasing levels of explanation associated with an automated tool recommendation) was manipulated to evaluate how transparent interfaces influence pilot trust of an emergency landing planning aid. We conducted a low-fidelity study in which commercial pilots interacted with simulated recommendations from NASA’s Emergency Landing Planner (ELP) that varied in their associated levels of transparency. Results indicated that trust in the ELP was influenced by the level of transparency within the human–machine interface of the ELP. Design recommendations for automated systems are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

We performed a human-in-the-loop study to explore the role of transparency in engendering trust and reliance within highly automated systems. Specifically, we examined how transparency impacts trust in and reliance upon the Autonomous Constrained Flight Planner (ACFP), a critical automated system being developed as part of NASA's Reduced Crew Operations (RCO) Concept. The ACFP is designed to provide an enhanced ground operator, termed a super dispatcher, with recommended diversions for aircraft when their primary destinations are unavailable. In the current study, 12 commercial transport rated pilots who played the role of super dispatchers were given six time-pressured "all land" scenarios where they needed to use the ACFP to determine diversions for multiple aircraft. Two factors were manipulated. The primary factor was level of transparency. In low transparency scenarios the pilots were given a recommended airport and runway, plus basic information about the weather conditions, the aircraft types, and the airport and runway characteristics at that and other airports. In moderate transparency scenarios the pilots were also given a risk evaluation for the recommended airport, and for the other airports if they requested it. In the high transparency scenario additional information including the reasoning for the risk evaluations was made available to the pilots. The secondary factor was level of risk, either high or low. For high-risk aircraft, all potential diversions were rated as highly risky, with the ACFP giving the best option for a bad situation. For low-risk aircraft the ACFP found only low-risk options for the pilot. Both subjective and objective measures were collected, including rated trust, whether the pilots checked the validity of the automation recommendation, and whether the pilots eventually flew to the recommended diversion airport. Key results show that: 1) Pilots' trust increased with higher levels of transparency, 2) Pilots were more likely to verify ACFP's recommendations with low levels of transparency and when risk was high, 3) Pilots were more likely to explore other options from the ACFP in low transparency conditions and when risk was high, and 4) Pilots' decision to accept or reject ACFP's recommendations increased as a function of the transparency in the explanation. The finding that higher levels of transparency was coupled with higher levels of trust, a lower need to verify other options, and higher levels of agreement with ACFP recommendations, confirms the importance of transparency in aiding reliance on automated recommendations. Additional analyses of qualitative data gathered from subjects through surveys and during debriefing interviews also provided the basis for new design recommendations for the ACFP.