Description and Analysis of Cognitive Processes in Ground Control Using a Mutual Belief-Based Team Cognitive Model

  • Sakiko OgawaEmail author
  • Taro Kanno
  • Kazuo Furuta
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 946)


Mutual understanding and shared situation awareness among air traffic controllers (ATCOs) and aircraft pilots is the key to safe ground control operations at airports. Hence, this paper presents cognitive models for ATCOs and aircraft pilots based on mutual belief. The aim of this model is to provide detailed descriptions of the cognitive processes in ground control communications. This study also presents a method that uses team process simulations to analyze the cognitive processes behind communications and situation-awareness sharing between ATCOs and pilots during ground control. The proposed models and method are used to replicate the Tenerife Airport accident in 1977 to demonstrate how they can be used for accident analysis. The results show that the proposed method can reveal additional possible cognitive processes that could occur given the actual communication log, including those processes identified in the accident investigation report. The proposed method hence has the potential to facilitate the analysis of ground control accidents at airports.


Mutual belief Accident analysis support Agent-based simulation 


  1. 1.
    Hollnagel, E.: Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Ashgate, Farnham (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaur, M.: Causes, identification and repair of loss of common ground in coordination in ATM (air traffic management). TU Delft Master’s thesis (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blom, H., Sharpanskykh, A.: Modelling situation awareness relations in a multiagent system. Appl. Intell. 43(2), 412–423 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanno, T., Furuta, K., Kitahara, Y.: A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 14(1), 38–52 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mahardhika, D., Kanno, T., Furuta, K.: Team cognition model based on mutual beliefs and mental subgrouping. J. Interact. Sci. 4(1), 1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endsley, M., Rodgers, M.: Situation awareness information requirements for en route air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 71–75. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endsley, M., Farley, T., Jones, W., Midkiff, A., Hansman, R.: Situation awareness information requirements for commercial airline pilots. International Center for Air Transport Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Endsley, M., Jones, W.M.: A model of inter-and intrateam situational awareness: implications for design, training and measurement. In: McNeese, M., Salas, E., Endsley, M. (eds.) New Trends in Cooperative Activities, pp. 46–68. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shu, Y., Furuta, K.: An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Int. J. Cogn. Technol. Work 7(4), 272–287 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furuta, K., Ohno, K., Kanno, T., Inoue, S.: Simulation of team cooperation process in en-route air traffic control. In: Advances in Air Navigation Services, pp. 69–86. InTech, London (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aircraft accident report, Air Line Pilots Association Engineering and Air Safety. Accessed 26 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems Innovation, School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Technology Management for Innovation, School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations