Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of operational event sequence diagrams and work domain analysis techniques for the specification of the crewing configuration of a single-pilot commercial aircraft

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aircraft manufacturers and avionics systems suppliers are developing technologies for airliners that will be operated by just a single crew member. An alternative approach to using a large amount of on-board computing proposes the utilisation of extant technology derived from single-seat military aircraft and Uninhabited Air Systems where control is distributed in real time across the aircraft flight deck and ground stations (which supervise several aircraft simultaneously). Using a combination of operational event sequence diagrams and work domain analysis techniques, the allocation of tasks and requirements for the development of supporting technologies for such an operational architecture are identified in a low visibility taxi scenario. These analyses show that many of the functions undertaken by a second pilot in this situation are associated with checking, surveillance and monitoring activities. These must be undertaken either by automated aircraft systems or the monitoring personnel in the ground station. This analytical approach can successfully provide the necessary information underpinning the design requirements for such an aircraft concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Across project http://www.across-fp7.eu/

  • Allison CK, Revell KM, Sears R, Stanton NA (Under Review) Systems theoretic accident model and process (STAMP) safety modelling applied to an aircraft rapid decompression event. Saf Sci

  • Aviation Week and Space Technology (2015) NASA advances single-pilot operations concepts: ‘Super dispatcher’ fills in for a dozen first officers in NASA studies. Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jan 12, 2015. Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilot-operations-concepts. 16 Nov 2016

  • Bilimoria KD, Johnson WW, Schutte PC (2014) Conceptual framework for single pilot operations. (2014). In: Proceedings of international conference on human-computer interaction in aerospace (HCI-Aero 2014), July 30–August 1, 2014. Santa Clara, California, USA

  • Boeing Aircraft Company (2006) Boeing 757 flight crew training manual, October 31, 2006. (Author: Seattle WA)

  • Bonner M, Taylor R, Fletcher K, Miller C (2000) Adaptive automation and decision aiding in the military fast jet domain. In: Kaber DB, Endsley MR (eds) Human performance, situation awareness and automation: user-centred design for the new millenium. Omnipress, Madison, WI, pp 154–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayon P, Kianfar S, Li Y, Xie A, Alyousef B, Wooldridge A (2015) A systematic review of mixed methods research on human factors and ergonomics in health care. Appl Ergon 51:291–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsten O, Lai FCH, Barnard Y, Jamson AH, Merat N (2012) Control task substitution in semi-automated driving: does it matter what aspects are automated? Hum Factors 54:747–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Challenger R, Clegg CW, Shepherd C (2013) Function allocation in complex systems: reframing an old problem. Ergonomics 56:1051–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civil Aviation Authority (2013) Monitoring Matters, guidance on the development of pilot monitoring skills. CAA Paper 2013/02. London: Civil Aviation Authority

  • Civil Aviation Authority (2015) Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance (6th Edition). CAP 722. London: Civil Aviation Authority

  • Comerford D, Brandt SL, Lachter J, Wu S-C., Mogford R, Battiste V, Johnson WL (2013) NASA’s single pilot operations technical interchange meeting: proceedings and findings (NASA/CP-2013-216513). (Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center)

  • Corbridge C, Cook CA (1997) The role of function allocation in the design of future naval systems In: Fallon E, Bannon L, McCarthy J (eds) ALLFN’97 revisiting the allocation of function issue: proceedings of the 1st international conference on allocation of functions, vol 1. IEA Press, Louisville, KY, pp 73–88

  • Croft J (2015) NASA advances single-pilot operations concepts. Aviation Week & Space Technology. 12 http://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilotoperations-concepts. Accessed 20 Sept 2016

  • Dearden A, Harrison M, Wright P (2000) Allocation of function: scenarios, context and the economics of effort. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:289–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutch S, Pew RW (2005) Single pilot commercial aircraft operation (BBN report No. 8436). Cambridge, MA: BBN Technologies

  • EASA (2011) European action plan for the prevention of runway incursions edition 2.0 (EASA, Cologne)

  • EasyJet PLC (2013) Annual report and accounts 2013, http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media/Files/E/Easyjet-Plc-V2/pdf/investors/result-center-investor/annual-report-2013.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2016

  • Fuld RB (2000) The fiction of function allocation, revisited. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:217–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D (2007) A human-centred design agenda for the development of a single crew operated commercial aircraft. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 79:518–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D, Stanton NA, Starr A (2015) Spot the difference: operational event sequence diagrams as a formal method for work allocation in the development of single pilot operations for commercial aircraft. Ergonomics 58(11):1773–1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddlestone J (2015) Future flight deck concept of operation and operational scenarios (Deliverable D1.2), Future Flight Deck, Aerospace Growth Partnership

  • Jenkins DP, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Salmon PM (2009) Cognitive work analysis: coping with complexity. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Keinrath C, Vašek J, Dorneich M (2010) A cognitive adaptive man-machine Interface for future Flight Decks. In: Droog A, Heese M (eds) Performance, safety and well-being in aviation proceedings of the 29th conference of the european association for aviation psychology, European Association of Aviation Psychology, Budapest, Hungary 20–24 Sep 2010

  • Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (1992) A guide to task analysis. Taylor and Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurke MI (1961) Operation sequence diagrams in system design. Hum Factors 3:66–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachter J, Brandt SL, Battiste V (2014) Toward single pilot operations: developing a ground station. In: Proceedings of international conference on human-computer interaction in aerospace (HCI-Aero 2014), July 30–August 1, 2014. Santa Clara, California, USA

  • Leveson N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42:237–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N (2011) Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy RC, Stanton NA (2011) Getting past first base: going all the way with cognitive work analysis. Appl Ergon 42:358–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naikar N (2006) Beyond interface design: further applications of cognitive work analysis. Int J Ind Ergon 36:423–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman RM (2013) Economic opportunities and technical challenges for reduced crew operations. In: Comerford D, Brandt SL, Lachter J, Wu S-C, Mogford R, Battiste V, Johnson WL (eds) NASA’s single pilot operations technical interchange meeting: proceedings and findings (NASA/CP-2013-216513), (Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center), pp 31–35

  • Onken R (1994) Human-centred cockpit design through the knowledge-based cockpit assistant system CASSY. NATO DRG panel 8 workshop on improving function allocation for integrated system design. (TNO Institute for Perception, Soesterberg, NL)

  • Onken R (1997) Functional development and field test of CASSY—a knowledge based cockpit assistant system, knowledge-based functions in aerospace systems, AGARD lecture series 200, (AGARD, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France)

  • Rasmussen J, Pejtersen A, Goodstein LP (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryanair (2009) Full year results, 2009. http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/2009/q4_2009_doc.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2017

  • Sanders MS, McCormick EJ (1993) Human factors in engineering and design. McGraw-Hill Publications, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte A, Meitinger C (2009) Cognitive and cooperative automation for manned-unmanned teaming missions. In: Advanced automation issues for supervisory control in manned-unmanned teaming missions. NATO Research and Technology Organization, EN-SCI-208. (NATO/OTAN: Neuilly-sur-Seine)

  • Schulte A, Meitinger C (2010) Measuring self-adaptive UAV operators’ load-shedding strategies under high workload. In: Harris D (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Springer, Berlin, pp 342–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte A, Meitinger C (2012) Introducing cognitive and co-operative automation into uav guidance work systems. In: Jentsch F, Barnes MM (eds) Human-robot interactions in future military operations. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 145–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte A, Stütz P (2001) Cognitive concepts in mission management for air-to-ground attack aircraft. In: Harris D (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics, vol 5. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon P, Harris D, Marshall A, Demagalski JM, Young MS, Waldmann T, Dekker SWA (2009) Predicting pilot error: testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Appl Ergon 40(3):464–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Sorensen LJ, Banks AP (2011) Back to SA school: contrasting three approaches to situation awareness in the cockpit. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 12:451–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design, 2nd edn. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Harris D, Starr A (2014) Modelling and analysis of single pilot operations in commercial aviation. In: Proceedings of HCI Aero 2014, 30 July–1 August, 2014, Santa Clara, CA, USA

  • Stanton NA, Harris D, Starr A (2016) The future flight deck: modelling dual, single and distributed crewing options. Appl Ergon 53:331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stütz P, Schulte A (2001) Evaluation of the cockpit assistant military aircraft (CAMA) in flight trials. In: Harris D (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics, vol 5. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RM, Howells H, Watson D (2000) The cognitive cockpit: operational requirement and technical challenge. In: McCabe PT, Hanson MA, Robertson SA (eds) Contemporary ergonomics 2000. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 55–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken as part of the Future Flight Teck Technology project funded by Innovate UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Mobility and Transport Research, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

    John Huddlestone, Rod Sears & Don Harris

Authors
  1. John Huddlestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rod Sears
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Don Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Huddlestone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huddlestone, J., Sears, R. & Harris, D. The use of operational event sequence diagrams and work domain analysis techniques for the specification of the crewing configuration of a single-pilot commercial aircraft. Cogn Tech Work 19, 289–302 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0423-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0423-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation