Flight Deck Optimization for a Future SESAR/NextGen Operating Environment

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 786)


Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) and Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) are ATM modernisation programs that are striving towards an ATM system that can provide greater capacity and efficiency whilst maintaining current level of safety and security. The current paper describes and compares the changes in flight deck operations that will occur in the envisioned future ATM environment. Subject matter expert views are gathered to evaluate potential human factors flight deck impacts. Both SESAR and NextGen describe flight deck operations defined by stricter separation parameters and greater delegation of flight trajectory conformance for the flight crew. Important human factor issues included ensuring clear communication of responsibility delegation to the flight crew and the impact of increased utilisation of real-time information (e.g. Meteorological (MET), traffic flows) on flight planning behaviour. Further SESAR and NextGen similarities and the associated human factor effects are discussed.


SESAR NextGen Flight deck Human Factors 



This project was co-funded by Innovate UK, the UK’s Innovation Agency, with support from the UK Aerospace Technology Institute.


  1. 1.
    Ulfbratt, E., McConville, J.: Comparison of the SESAR and NextGen concepts of operations. NCOIC Aviat. IPT 1, 22 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Funk, K., Mauro, R., Barshi, I.: NextGen flight deck human factor issues. Int. Symp. Aviat. Psychol. 1, 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGarry, K., Stelzer, E.: An assessment of pilots’ concurrent use of runway entrance lights and surface movement control system guidance system stop bars. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 55(1), 31–35 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coordination Committee (CCOM) for the US-EU MoC Annex 1 High-Level Committee. NextGen - SESAR State of Harmonisation (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krois, P., Piccione, D., McCloy, T.: Commentary on nextgen and aviation human factors. Hum. Factors Aviat. 2010, 701–710 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation Awareness, Automation & Free Flight, pp. 1–8 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiener, E.L., Curry, R.E.: Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics 23(10), 995–1011 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarter, N.B., Mumaw, R.J., Wickens, C.D.: Pilots’ monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks: an empirical study combining behavioral and eye-tracking data. Hum. Factors 49(3), 347–357 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geiselman, E.E., Johnson, C.M., Buck, D.R.: Flight deck automation: invaluable collaborator or insidious enabler? Ergon. Des. 21(3), 22–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, L., Dulchinos, V., Lozito, S., Kaneshige, J., Sharma, S.: An investigation of flight deck data link in the terminal area. In: Tenth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar. Airport (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGann, A., Morrow, D., Rodvold, M., Mackintosh, M.A.: Mixed-media communication on the flight deck: a comparison of voice, data link, and mixed ATC environments. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 8(2), 137–156 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hah, S., Hallman, K., Williams, B., Brett, H.: Human-in-the-loop simulation experiment of integrated arrival/departure control services For NextGen operational improvement. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 61(1), 101–105 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    FAA Administration: NextGen implementation plan 2016 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations