Aviation Automation: General Perspectives and Specific Guidance for the Design of Modes and Alerts

Abstract

Automation has long been a significant component of the flight deck, to the point that it is often referred to as a "team member." This review notes the recent insights into aviation human-automation interaction, starting with a quick tour of the modern flight deck to illustrate the current state of the art in applying automation in safety-critical systems. The review then contrasts three prevalent perspectives on applying automation: those that focus on the technology itself, on automation within the operating environment, and on automation as a team member. Next, this review discusses two prevalent forms of aviation automation for which significant research and design guidance has been developed: automation based on modal behaviors, such as the flight management system, and alerting functions, which direct attention or motivate action as warranted by events. Finally, the review notes considerations regarding the certification, testing, and evaluation of automation (and human-automation interaction) in the safety-critical domain of aviation.

Architecture Challenges for Intelligent Autonomous Machines

“…Extensive discussions on introducing autonomy, whether the introduced autonomy should be high or low, and the exact role of autonomy are especially common in the aviation domain, within the larger discourse on automation [9]. Several perspectives on how to approach automation continue to coexist.…”

“…Several perspectives on how to approach automation continue to coexist. These perspectives range from the long-held belief that automation should be matched to functions unsuitable for human control [10] to the more recent view that automated systems may be analyzed as team members [9]. Each perspective highlights di erent user interaction problems which are very much relevant to the discussion of autonomy, such as mode confusion [11,12], moving interaction to times of high workload, failure after reaching or nearing the point of no return, automation bias, etc.…”

“…This makes it problematic to rely on past experience when human operators migrate between similar systems. Relying on faulty automation might easily be framed as over-reliance and misuse, while relying on correct automation that still allows for mistakes might be framed as under-reliance or disuse [9]. Focusing primarily on the human-in-the-loop as the problem is too frequently a "convenient solution".…”

Automated conflict resolution for airport traffic using graduated intervention

“…An alerting system can be defined as "an electro-mechanical system capable of monitoring for, detecting and announcing conditions anticipated (by the operator or the system designer) to impact the operator's near term activities" [7]. This definition captures the traditional concept of an alert; however, current automation systems usually combine alerting with aids to operator situational awareness and may also provide resolution guidance.…”

The automation design advisor tool (ADAT): Development and validation of a model‐based tool to support flight deck automation design for nextgen operations

“…Numerous well‐documented problems with the FMS have been identified by several researchers, concerning both its functionality and its interface (Degani, 2004; Hutchins, 1996; Pritchett, 2009; Sarter & Woods, 1992, 1994, 2000; Sherry & Polson, 1999; Vakil, Hansman, & Midkiff, 1995). The classic questions, “What is it doing now?” “Why is it doing that?” and “What will it do next?” are still often heard on modern flight decks (Wiener, 1989).…”