Advertisement

A Workflow Perspective in Aviation

  • Guy André BoyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

During the last three decades, aircraft cockpits have been highly automated and incrementally digitized to the point that we now talk about “interactive cockpits”, not because pilots interact with the mechanical part of the aircraft directly, but because they use a pointing device to interact with computer screens. More generally, computers invaded the airspace ranging from onboard aircraft to air traffic control (ATC) ground services. In terms of workflow, the elimination of the flight-engineer onboard commercial aircraft cockpits drastically transformed the way pilots fly—this was done in the beginning of the 1980s. Pilot’s activity shifted from manual control to cognitive management of embedded systems (performing some of the tasks the flight engineer used to do). Aircraft automation considerably improved commercial aviation safety. Today, main issues come from the exponential increase of the number of aircraft in the sky. Air traffic complexity imposes drastic reengineering of air traffic workflow. ATC is shifting towards air traffic management (ATM). Same thing: moving from control to management, expanding cockpit’s single agent problems and solutions to air traffic multi-agent problems and solutions. The main emphasis is therefore social cognition. During the twentieth century, we automated physical systems—we now talk about cyber-physical systems (i.e., we shifted from hardware mechanical engineering issues to software cognitive problems). During the beginning of the twenty-first century, almost all systems are first ideated and designed as pieces of software, and they are transformed into tangible things. Consequently, workflow can be modeled and simulated very early during the design process and, unlike during the twentieth century, functions and therefore activities can be tested before anything is physically built. This provides great possibilities that should be operationalized and implemented. This chapter will show that the main issue has become tangibility, instead of automation. At the same time, these new possibilities provided by our emerging digital world enable a brand-new move towards more autonomous systems that need to be coordinated. We will illustrate this shift from automation towards autonomy, by providing salient examples and generic patterns of this evolution of workflow in the aviation domain.

Keywords

Automation Cognitive management Safety Complexity Air traffic management Social cognition Cyber-physical systems Modeling and simulation Human centered design Tangibility 

References

  1. Athènes S, Averty P, Puechmorel S, Delahaye D, Collet C. ATC complexity and controller workload: trying to bridge the gap. In: Hansman J, Chatty S, Boy G, editors. Proceedings of HCI-Aero’02. Boston; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Bainbridge L. Forgotten alternatives in skill and workload. Ergonomics. 1978;21:169–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boy GA. The MESSAGE system: a first step toward computer-supported analysis of human-machine interactions (in French). Le Travail Humain J. 1983;46(2).Google Scholar
  4. Boy GA. Operator assistant systems. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1987;27:541–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boy GA. Cognitive function analysis. New York: Praeger/Ablex; 1998. ISBN 9781567503777.Google Scholar
  6. Boy GA. Maturity, automation and user experience (maturité, automation et experience des utilisateurs). In: Proceeding of the French conference on human-computer interaction. New York: ACM; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Boy GA, editor. Handbook of human-machine interaction: a human-centered design approach. Farnham: Ashgate; 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7546-7580-8.Google Scholar
  8. Boy GA. Orchestrating human-centered design. London: Springer; 2013. ISBN: 978-1-4471-4338-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boy GA. On the complexity of situation awareness. In: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, 9–14; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Boy GA. Tangible interactive systems: grasping the real world with computers. London: Springer; 2016. ISBN: 978-3-319-30270-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boy GA, Grote G. Authority in increasingly complex human and machine collaborative systems: application to the future air traffic management construction. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Ergonomics Association World Congress, Beijing, China; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Boy GA, Tessier C. Cockpit analysis and assessment by the MESSAGE methodology. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA conf. on analysis, design and evaluation of man-machine systems, Villa-Ponti, Italy, September 10–12. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1985. p. 73–9.Google Scholar
  13. Callon M. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law J, editor. A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge; 1991. p. 132–61.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll JM. Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. New York: Wiley; 1995.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper GE, White MD, Lauber JI. Resource management on the flight deck. In: Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop Held at San Francisco, California June 26-28, 1979. NASA Conference Publication 2120, NASA Ames Research Center, CA; 1980.Google Scholar
  16. Cummings ML, Tsonis CG. Partitioning complexity in air traffic management tasks. Int J Aviat Psychol. 2006;16(3):277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doyon-Poulin P, Ouellette B, Robert JM. Effects of visual clutter on pilot workload, flight performance and gaze pattern. In: Proceedings of HCI-Aero 2014, Santa Clara, CA. Also in the ACM Digital Library; 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Endsley MR. Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: Paper presented at the National Aerospace and Electronic Conference (NAECON), Dayton, OH; 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Endsley MR. Automation and situation awareness. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M, editors. Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum; 1996. p. 163–81.Google Scholar
  20. Fitts PM, editor. Human engineering for an effective air navigation and traffic control system. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 1951.Google Scholar
  21. Gander P, Graeber C, Belenky G. Operator fatigue: implications for human-machine interaction. In: Handbook of human-machine interaction: a human-centered design approach. London: Ashgate; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Grote G. Uncertainty management at the core of system design. Annu Rev Control. 2004;28:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton S. Thinking outside the box at the IHMC. IEEE Computer, January, 0018-9162/01; 2001. p. 61–71.Google Scholar
  24. Hart SG. Theoretical basis for workload assessment. TM ADP001150. Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center; 1982.Google Scholar
  25. Helmreich RL, Merritt AC, Wilhelm JA. The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1999;9(1):19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hemingway CJ. Toward a socio-cognitive theory of information systems: an analysis of key philosophical and conceptual issues. In: IFIP WG 8.2 and 8.6 Joint Working Conference on information systems: current issues and future changes. Helsinki: IFIP; 1999. p. 275–86.Google Scholar
  27. Hilburn B. Cognitive complexity in air traffic control: a literature review. Project COCA—COmplexity and CApacity. EEC Note No. 04/04; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Hoc JM, Lemoine MP. Cognitive evaluation of human-human and human-machine cooperation modes in Air Traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1998;8(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutchins E. How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cogn Sci. 1995;19:265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Latour B. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  31. Laudeman IV, Shelden SG, Branstrom R, Brasil CL. Dynamic density. An Air Traffic management metric. Mountain View, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center; 1998. NASA/TM-1998-112226.Google Scholar
  32. Leveson N, Dulac N, Marais K, Carroll J. Moving beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: a systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organ Stud. 2009;30(2-3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mogford RH. Mental models and situation awareness in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997;7(4):331–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M, Weber C. Capability maturity model for software (Version 1.1). Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024; 1993.Google Scholar
  35. Schwaber K. Scrum development process. In: Sutherland J, Patel D, Casanave C, Miller J, Hollowell G, editors. OOPSLA business objects design and implementation workshop proceedings. London: Springer; 1997.Google Scholar
  36. Sharples M, Jeffery N, du Boulay JBH, Teather D, Teather B, du Boulay GH. Socio-cognitive engineering: A methodology for the design of human-centered technology. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;136(2):310–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sperandio JC. La psychologie en ergonomie (Psychology in ergonomics). Paris: PUF; 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Sutherland J. Scrum: the art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York: Crown Business; 2014. ISBN-13: 978-0385346450.Google Scholar
  39. Wickens CD. Engineering psychology and human performance. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1992. ISBN: 0673461610.Google Scholar
  40. Wiener EL. Human factors of advanced technology (“glass cockpit”) transport aircraft. (NASA Contractor Report No. 177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center; 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FlexTech ChairCentraleSupélec (Paris Saclay University) and ESTIA Institute of TechnologyBidartFrance

Personalised recommendations