The Investigation Human-Computer Interaction on Multiple Remote Tower Operations

  • Peter KearneyEmail author
  • Wen-Chin Li
  • Graham Braithwaite
  • Matthew Greaves
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10275)


The aim of current research is to develop an effective human-computer interaction framework for multiple remote tower operations. Five subject-matter experts familiar with multiple remote tower operations and human performance participated in current research. The Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) method is used to break down activities, scenarios, and tasks into single separate operations. The step by step breakdown of multiple remote tower operations included ATCO’s operational behaviors involving human-computer interaction such as interaction with EFS, OTW, RDP, and IDP during task performance were noted. Designing and managing human-computer interactions require an understanding of the principles of cognitive systems, allocation of functions and team adaptation between human operators and computer interactions. It is a holistic approach which considers distributed cognition coordination to rapidly changing situations. The human-centred design of multiple remote tower operations shall be based on a strategic, collaborative and automated concept of operations, as the associated high performance of remote tower systems in conflict detection and resolution has the potential to increase both airspace efficiency and the safety of aviation. The focus is on the human performance associated with new technology in the RTC and the supported tools used by an Air Traffic Control Officer, to ensure that these are used safely and efficiently to control aircraft both remotely and for multiple airports. The advanced technology did provide sufficient technical supports to one ATCO performing a task originally designed to be performed by several ATCOs, however, the application of this new technology also induced huge workload on the single ATCO.


Multiple remote tower operations Human computer interaction Situation awareness Workload 


  1. Annett, J.: Hierarchical task analysis. In: Stanton, N.A., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., Hendrick, N.A. (eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, pp. 329–337. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Buch, G., Diehl, A.: An investigation of the effectiveness of pilot judgement training. Hum. Factors 26(5), 557–564 (1984). doi: 10.1177/001872088402600507 Google Scholar
  3. Diehl, A.: The effectiveness of training programs for preventing aircrew error. In: Jensen, R.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 640–655. The Ohio State University, Colombus (1991)Google Scholar
  4. Eurocontrol: Eurocontrol Seven-year IFR Flight Movements and Service Units Forecast: 2014–2020 (Reference No. 14/02/24-43). Brussels, Belgium (2014).
  5. Furstenau, N., Mittendorf, M., Friedrich, M.: Model-Based analysis of two-alternative decision errors in a videopanorama-based remote tower work position. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Crete, Greece, pp. 143–154 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Jensen, R.S., Bernel, R.A.: Judgment Evaluation and Instruction in Civil Pilot Training. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. (1977)Google Scholar
  7. Kirwan, B., Ainsworth, L.K.: A Guide to Task Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Li, W.-C., Harris, D.: The Evaluation of the effect of a short aeronautical decision-making training program for military pilots. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 18(2), 135–152 (2008). doi: 10.1080/10508410801926715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schuster, W., Ochieng, W.: Performance requirements of future trajectory prediction and conflict detection and resolution tools within SESAR and NextGen: framework for the derivation and discussion. J. Air Transp. Manage. 35, 92–101 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stanton, N.A.: Hierarchical task analysis: developments, applications and extensions. Appl. Ergon. 37(1), 55–79 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P., Harris, D., Marshall, A., Demagalski, J., Young, M.S., Waldmann, T., Dekker, S.: Predicting pilot error on the flight deck: validation of a new methodology and a multiple methods and analysts approach to enhancing error prediction sensitivity. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Stanton, N.A., Harris, D., Salmon, P.M., Demagalski, J., Marshall, A., Waldmann, T., Dekker, S., Young, M.S.: Predicting design-induced error in the cockpit. J. Aeronaut. Astronaut. Aviat. 42(1), 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Rafferty, L.A., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design, 2nd edn. Ashgate, Farnham (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Kearney
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wen-Chin Li
    • 2
  • Graham Braithwaite
    • 2
  • Matthew Greaves
    • 2
  1. 1.ATM Operations and StrategyIrish Aviation AuthorityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Safety and Accident Investigation CentreCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK

Personalised recommendations