The influence of task load on situation awareness and control strategy in the ATC tower environment

  • Maik Friedrich
  • Maresa Biermann
  • Patrick Gontar
  • Marcus Biella
  • Klaus Bengler
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The safe and efficient operation of air traffic is highly dependent on the performance of the Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO). The ATCOs control the traffic within defined areas by monitoring the traffic and granting clearances. A key element in analyzing the ATCOs is their interaction with the environment through their workplace. Especially the influence of task load on their situation awareness (SA) and applied control strategy provides information on the quality of the workplace. As task load increases, controllers are able to maintain performance by using different management or compensation strategies. This article supports the evaluation of ATCO’s workplaces by focusing on whether probe techniques for assessing SA are applicable for tower control operation and for measuring the influences of increased task load on the control strategy. An experiment with nine ATCOs was conducted in a simulated real-time air traffic control environment. Different measurements for SA were applied and compared regarding their efficiency and validity. The manipulation of task load and visibility influenced the SA and control strategy at the same time. Performance metrics were selected in advance to evaluate the participant’s efficiency. SA was measured with a probe technique and an offline self-assessment method. Findings suggest that probe techniques increase the insight into the understanding of SA in comparison to self-assessment and that they are applicable to the air traffic control environment. Control strategies were derived from the information-gathering process via the eye-movement behavior and connected to task load. The results imply that SA is part of the individual performance and that increasing demand through task load is handled with an adaptation of the control strategy.

Keywords

Task load Situation awareness Strategy identification Eye tracking Air traffic control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received funding from the German Aerospace Center institutional funding mechanism dedicated to the human center approach for automation, which is sponsored by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

References

  1. Ahlstrom U, Friedman-Berg FJ (2006) Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload. Int J Ind Ergon 36:623–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambroggi Md, Trucco P (2011) Modelling and assessment of dependent performance shaping factors through analytic network process. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacon LP, Strybel TZ (2013) Assessment of the validity and intrusiveness of online-probe questions for situation awareness in a simulated air-traffic-management task with student air-traffic controllers. Saf Sci 56:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann M, Krems JF (2007) Situation awareness and driving: a cognitive model. In: Cacciabue PC (eds) Modelling driver behaviour in automotive environments. Springer, London, pp 253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolstad CA (2001) Situation awareness: does it change with age? In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 4. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, pp 272–276Google Scholar
  6. Brookings JB, Wilson GF, Swain CR (1996) Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biol Psychol 42:361–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(95)05167-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiappe DL, Strybel TZ, Vu K-PL (2012) Mechanisms for the acquisition of situation awareness in situated agents. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 13:625–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiappe D, Strybel TZ, Vu K-PL (2015) A situated approach to the understanding of dynamic situations. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 9:33–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343414559053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corradini P, Cacciari C (2002) The effect of workload and workshift on air traffic control: a taxonomy of communicative problems. Cognit Technol Work 4:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox-Fuenzalida L-E (2007) Effect of workload history on task performance. Hum Factors 49:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dehn DM (2008) Assessing the Impact of Automation on the Air Traffic Controller: The SHAPE Questionnaires. Air Traffic Control Q 16:127–146.  https://doi.org/10.2514/atcq.16.2.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dekker SW (2015) The danger of losing situation awareness. Cognit Technol Work 17:159–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dekker SW, Woods DD (2002) MABA-MABA or abracadabra? Progress on human–automation co-ordination. Cognit Technol Work 4:240–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durso FT, Sethumadhavan A (2008) Situation awareness: understanding dynamic environments. Hum Factors 50:442–448.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durso FT, Hackworth CA, Truitt TR, Crutchfield J, Nikolic D, Manning CA (1998) Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Control Q 6:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards T (2013) Human performance in air traffic control. Dissertation, University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  17. Endsley MR (1995a) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 37:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Endsley MR (1995b) Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Endsley MR (2000) Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Endsley MR, Garland D (eds) Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, p 400Google Scholar
  20. Endsley MR (2015) Situation awareness: operationally necessary and scientifically grounded. Cognit Technol Work 17:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Endsley MR, Rodgers MD (1996) Attention distribution and situation awareness in air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 2. SAGE Publications Sage, Los Angeles, pp 82–85Google Scholar
  22. EUROCONTROL/FAA (2010) Human performance in air traffic management safety: a white paper. Action Plan 15 SafetyGoogle Scholar
  23. Flin R, Martin L, Goeters K-M, Hormann H, Amalberti R, Valot C, Nijhuis H (2003) Development of the NOTECHS (non-technical skills) system for assessing pilots’ CRM skills. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 3:97–120Google Scholar
  24. Friedrich M, Rußwinkel N, Möhlenbrink C (2016) A guideline for integrating dynamic areas of interests in existing set-up for capturing eye movement: looking at moving aircraft. Behav Res Methods.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0745-x Google Scholar
  25. Fry AF, Hale S (1996) Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence: evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychol Sci 7:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fry AF, Hale S (2000) Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biol Psychol 54:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fürstenau N (2016) Virtual and remote control tower: research, design, development and validation. Springer, Switzerland, p 337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fürstenau N, Friedrich M, Mittendorf M, Schmidt M, Rudolph M (2013) Discriminability of flight maneuvers and risk of false decisions derived from dual choice decision errors in a videopanorama-based remote tower work position, vol 8020. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Gontar P, Hoermann HJ (2015) Interrater reliability at the top end: measures of pilots’ nontechnical performance. Int J Aviat Psychol 25:171–190.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2015.1162636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gregory T, Nettelbeck T, Howard S, Wilson C (2009) A test of the cascade model in the elderly. Personal Individ Differ 46:71–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffin M, Neal A, Neale M (2000) The contribution of task performance and contextual performance to effectiveness: investigating the role of situational constraints. Appl Psychol 49:517–533.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hadley GA, Guttman JA, Stringer PG (1999) Air traffic control specialist performance measurement database (No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN99/17). William J Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJGoogle Scholar
  33. Hendy KC (1995) Situation awareness and workload: birds of a feather? AGARD AMP symposium on ‘Situational Awareness: Limitations and Enhancements in the Aviation Environment, Brussels, 24–28 Apr 1995Google Scholar
  34. International Organization for Standardization (1991) Ergonomic principles related to mental work-load vol ISO 10075:1991Google Scholar
  35. Jeannot E (2000) Situation Awareness Synthesis and Literature Search (EEC Note No. 16/00). Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, FranceGoogle Scholar
  36. Jeannot E, Kelly C, Thompson D (2003) The development of situation awareness measures in ATM systems. In: (HRS/HSP-005-REP-, 01) (eds), Brussels, Belgium. EUROCONTROLGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  38. Karikawa D, Aoyama H, Takahashi M, Furuta K, Ishibashi A, Kitamura M (2014) Analysis of the performance characteristics of controllers’ strategies in en route air traffic control tasks. Cognit Technol Work 16:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kass SJ, Cole KS, Stanny CJ (2007) Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 10:321–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kerkau F (2005) Biosignale der Pupille zur Steuerung intelligenter User-Interfaces: Untersuchung von Pupillenbewegungen zur Realisierung einer biopsychologischen Computerschnittstelle für die Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. Freie Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Kirwan B, Bettignies-Thiebaux B, Scholte J (2014) Optics: expert workshop: human factors. In: 1st expert workshop: human factors, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  42. Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2013) Strategies in controlling, coordinating and adapting performance in air traffic control: modelling ‘loss of control events’. Cognit Technol Work 15:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kraemer J, Süß H-M (2015) Real time validation of online situation awareness questionnaires in simulated approach air traffic control. Procedia Manuf 3:3152–3159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuk G, Arnold M, Ritter FE (1999) Effects of light and heavy workload on air traffic tactical operations: a hazard rate model. Ergonomics 42:1133–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lange M (2014) Information search for decision-making in tower air traffic control: a field study. Tu Chemnitz, ChemnitzGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee YH, Jeon J-D, Choi Y-C (2012) Air traffic controllers’ situation awareness and workload under dynamic air traffic situations. Transp J 51:338–352.  https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.51.3.0338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loft S, Bowden V, Braithwaite J, Morrell DB, Huf S, Durso FT (2015) Situation awareness measures for simulated submarine track management. Hum Factors 57:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mensen H (2014) Moderne Flugsicherung: organisation, Verfahren. Springer, TechnikCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Metzger U, Parasuraman R (2005) Automation in future air traffic management: effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Hum Factors 47:35–49.  https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720053653802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papenfuss A, Friedrich M (2016) Head Up Only—a design concept to enable multiple remote tower operations 35th digital avionics systems conferenceGoogle Scholar
  51. Papenfuss A, Friedrich M, Möhlenbrink C, Rudolph M, Schier S, Schmidt M, Fürstenau N (2010) Assessing operational validity of remote tower control in high-fidelity tower simulation. IFAC Proc Vol 43:117–122.  https://doi.org/10.3182/20100831-4-FR-2021.00022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Papenmeier F, Huff M (2010) DynAOI: a tool for matching eye-movement data with dynamic areas of interest in animations and movies. Behav Res Methods 41:179–187.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2008) Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J Cognit Eng Decis Mak 2:140–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Patten CJ, Kircher A, Ostlund J, Nilsson L, Svenson O (2006) Driver experience and cognitive workload in different traffic environments. Accid Anal Prev 38:887–894.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Redding RE (1992) Analysis of operational errors and workload in air-traffic-control proceedings of the human factors society, 36th annual meeting, vols 1 and 2, pp 1321–1325Google Scholar
  56. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins D, Ladva D, Rafferty L, Young M (2009) Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: comparison of measures study. Int J Ind Ergon 39:490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shelton CL, Kinston R, Molyneux AJ, Ambrose LJ (2012) Real-time situation awareness assessment in critical illness management: adapting the situation present assessment method to clinical simulation BMJ Qual Saf:bmjqs-2012-000932Google Scholar
  58. Sperandio J-C (1971) Variation of Operator’s strategies and regulating effects on workload. Ergonomics 14:571–577.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137108931277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sperandio J-C (1978) The regulation of working methods as a function of work-load among air traffic controllers. Ergonomics 21:195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137808931713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strater L, Tinsley M, Costello A, Colombo D, Endsley M (2010) Situation awareness requirements for optimized profile descent and integrated arrivals and departures. NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain ViewGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor RM (1990) Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: Paper presented at the Situational awareness: limitations and enhancement in the aviation environment, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, FranceGoogle Scholar
  62. Teutsch J, Postma-Kurlanc A (2014) Enhanced virtual block control for Milan Malpensa Airport in low visibility. In: Integrated communications, navigation and surveillance conference (ICNS) 2014. IEEE, pp E1-1–E1-13.  https://doi.org/10.1109/icnsurv.2014.6819984
  63. Vidulich MA (2000) The relationship between mental workload and situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 21. SAGE Publications, pp 3-460–463Google Scholar
  64. Wickens CD (2002) Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wickens CD, Mavor AS, McGee JP (1997) Flight to the future: human factors in air traffic control. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  66. Yang C-W, Yang L-C, Cheng T-C, Jou Y-T, Chiou S-W (2012) Assessing mental workload and situation awareness in the evaluation of computerized procedures in the main control room. Nucl Eng Des 250:713–719.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.05.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Young MS, Brookhuis KA, Wickens CD, Hancock PA (2015) State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Aerospace CenterBrunswickGermany
  2. 2.Technical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations