Pilot Performance in Trajectory-Based Operations Under Concepts of Operation That Vary Separation Responsibility Across Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, and Automation

Vu, Kim‐Phuong L.; Strybel, Thomas Z.; Battiste, Vernol; Lachter, Joel; Dao, Arik-Quang V.; Brandt, Summer L.; Ligda, Sarah V.; Johnson, Walter W.

doi:10.1080/10447318.2012.634761

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, previous analyses have shown that for all concepts there were no significant differences from the baseline profiles and no significant variation in terms of IAS, altitude, and KE at the TOD and the merge point PRINC [18]. That is, aircraft in each concept converged to a common flight state and had comparable initial conditions at the start of the CDA.…”

Section: Robustness To Weather Perturbationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The study presented flights through and around weather during the cruise phase of flight, and for which the differing allocations were examined. Previous papers have reported subjective and performance data for the cruise phase in this study [18][19]. However, each of the flights in this study culminated with a final weather free arrival phase down to the meter fix during which ATCs were always responsible for separation management, but there has been only a limited examination of how the cruise phase functional allocation affected performance associated with the arrival phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The results on pilot and controller situation awareness and workload have been reported in a number of papers [18,19,21] and will only be summarized here. In general, it was found that pilots had the highest situation awareness in Concept 1 (Pilot Primary), when they were most actively engaged in and responsible for separation assurance.…”

Section: Ivb Situation Awareness and Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, only data collected during the second week of this experiment is reported in this paper, due to equipment failure and malfunction occurred during the first week of the experiment. The flight time experience is summarized in Table 2 below [18]. Five of the eight second-week pilots were Captains a n d t h r e e w e r e F i r s t O f f i c e r s .…”

Section: Iiic Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pseudo-pilot stations were operated by awareness and workload probes administered at 3-minute intervals asked both pilots and controllers to subjectively rate their workload and answer descriptive questions about their situation awareness. The readers are referred to [18][19]21] for more details. …”

Section: Iiie Distributed and Networked Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Design and evaluation of NextGen aircraft separation assurance concepts

Johnson

Arutyunov

et al. 2012

2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To support the development and evaluation of future function allocation concepts for separation assurance systems for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, this paper presents the design and human-in-the-loop evaluation of three feasible function allocation concepts that allocate primary aircraft separation assurance responsibilities and workload to: 1) pilots; 2) air traffic controllers (ATC); and 3) automation. The design of these concepts also included rules of the road, separation assurance burdens for aircraft of different equipage levels, and utilization of advanced weather displays paired with advanced conflict detection and resolution automation. Results of the human-in-theloop simulation show that: a) all the concepts are robust with respect to weather perturbation; b) concept 1 (pilots) had highest throughput, closest to assigned spacing, and fewest violations of speed and altitude restrictions; c) the energy of the aircraft during the descent phase was better managed in concepts 1 and 2 (pilots and ATC) than in concept 3 (automation), in which the situation awareness of pilots and controllers was lowest, and workload of pilots was highest. The paper also discusses further development of these concepts and their augmentation and integration with future air traffic management tools and systems that are being considered for NextGen.

show abstract

Section: Robustness To Weather Perturbationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Ivb Situation Awareness and Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Iiic Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Iiie Distributed and Networked Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Design and evaluation of NextGen aircraft separation assurance concepts

Johnson

Arutyunov

et al. 2012

2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effect of multi‐tasking training on performance, situation awareness, and workload in simulated air traffic control

Black

Bender

Whitney

et al. 2022

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly higher demands are being made on the capacity-limited cognitive capabilities of human operators as they strive to maintain situation awareness (i.e., understanding "what is going on") and performance in complex tasks. In the current study we asked whether: (a) training administered via a mobile phone-based app could improve multitasking and (b) improved multitasking in the app would generalize to improved performance and situation awareness in a simulated air traffic control task (ATC). Participants completed the ATC task before and after multiple sessions of app-based multitasking training or control training. Multitasking on the app improved across training sessions. However, this did not lead to improved performance or situation awareness, or workload reduction, relative to control training on the ATC task. These outcomes indicate that app-based multitasking training based on repetition of a single training task will not necessarily yield generalizable benefits to human performance in other complex dynamic tasks.

show abstract