Flight Deck Workload and Acceptability of Verbal and Digital Communication Protocols

Brandt, Summer L.; Lachter, Joel; Dao, Arik-Quang V.; Battiste, Vernol; Johnson, Walter W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21669-5_55

“…Each participant also had a separate touchscreen computer used to collect workload and flight plan acceptability ratings. For a discussion of this data see Brandt et al [16].…”

Section: Controller Stationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

An examination of selected datacom options for the near-term implementation of trajectory based operations

Johnson¹,

Brandt²,

Lachter³

et al. 2011

2011 IEEE/AIAA 30th Digital Avionics Systems Conference

Self Cite

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary feature of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is trajectory based operations (TBO). Under TBO, aircraft flight plans are known to computer systems on the ground that aid in scheduling and separation. The Future Air Navigation System (FANS) was developed to support TBO, but relatively few aircraft in the US are FANSequipped. Thus, any near-term implementation must provide TBO procedures for non-FANS aircraft. Previous research has explored controller clearances, but any implementation must also provide procedures for aircraft requests. The work presented here aims to surface issues surrounding TBO communication procedures for non-FANS aircraft and for aircraft requesting deviations around weather. Three types of communication were explored: Voice, FANS, and ACARS,(Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System). ACARS and FANS are datacom systems that differ in that FANS allows uplinked flight plans to be loaded into the Flight Management System (FMS), while ACARS delivers flight plans as text that must be entered manually via the Control Display Unit (CDU). Sixteen pilots (eight two-person flight decks) and four controllers participated in 32 20-minute scenarios that required the flight decks to navigate through convective weather as they approached their top of descents (TODs). Findings: The rate of non-conformance was higher than anticipated, with aircraft off path more than 20% of the time. Controllers did not differentiate between the ACARS and FANS datacom, and were mixed in their preference for Voice vs. datacom (ACARS and FANS). Pilots uniformly preferred Voice to datacom, particularly ACARS. Much of their dislike appears to result from the slow response times in the datacom conditions. As a result, participants frequently resorted to voice communication. These results imply that, before implementing TBO in environments where pilots make weather deviation requests, further research is needed to develop communication procedures that integrate voice and datacom.

show abstract

“…Each participant also had a separate touchscreen computer used to collect workload and flight plan acceptability ratings. For a discussion of this data see Brandt et al [16].…”

Section: Controller Stationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

An examination of selected datacom options for the near-term implementation of trajectory based operations

Johnson

¹

,

Lachter

²

,

Battiste

³

et al. 2011

2011 IEEE/AIAA 30th Digital Avionics Systems Conference

Self Cite

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary feature of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is trajectory based operations (TBO). Under TBO, aircraft flight plans are known to computer systems on the ground that aid in scheduling and separation. The Future Air Navigation System (FANS) was developed to support TBO, but relatively few aircraft in the US are FANSequipped. Thus, any near-term implementation must provide TBO procedures for non-FANS aircraft. Previous research has explored controller clearances, but any implementation must also provide procedures for aircraft requests. The work presented here aims to surface issues surrounding TBO communication procedures for non-FANS aircraft and for aircraft requesting deviations around weather. Three types of communication were explored: Voice, FANS, and ACARS,(Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System). ACARS and FANS are datacom systems that differ in that FANS allows uplinked flight plans to be loaded into the Flight Management System (FMS), while ACARS delivers flight plans as text that must be entered manually via the Control Display Unit (CDU). Sixteen pilots (eight two-person flight decks) and four controllers participated in 32 20-minute scenarios that required the flight decks to navigate through convective weather as they approached their top of descents (TODs). Findings: The rate of non-conformance was higher than anticipated, with aircraft off path more than 20% of the time. Controllers did not differentiate between the ACARS and FANS datacom, and were mixed in their preference for Voice vs. datacom (ACARS and FANS). Pilots uniformly preferred Voice to datacom, particularly ACARS. Much of their dislike appears to result from the slow response times in the datacom conditions. As a result, participants frequently resorted to voice communication. These results imply that, before implementing TBO in environments where pilots make weather deviation requests, further research is needed to develop communication procedures that integrate voice and datacom.

show abstract