Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 541–565 | Cite as

Uncertainty management in enroute air traffic control: a field study exploring controller strategies and requirements for automation

  • Sifra CorverEmail author
  • Gudela Grote
Original Article

Abstract

The management of uncertainty is a critical aspect of current as well as future air traffic control operations. This study investigated: (1) sources of uncertainty in enroute air traffic control, (2) strategies that air traffic controllers adopt to cope with uncertainty, (3) the trade-offs and contingencies that influences the adoption of these uncertainties, and (4) the requirements for system design that support controllers in following these strategies. The data were collected using a field study in two enroute air traffic control centres, involving “over the shoulder” observation sessions, discussions with air traffic controllers, and document analysis. Three types of uncertainty coping strategies were identified: reducing uncertainty, acknowledging uncertainty, and increasing uncertainty. The RAWFS heuristic (Lipshitz and Strauss in Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 69:149–163, 1997) and anticipatory thinking (Klein et al. in Anticipatory thinking, Proceedings of the eighth international NDM conference, Pacific Grove, CA, 2007) were used to identify reduction and acknowledgement strategies. Recent suggestions by Grote (Saf Sci 71:71–79, 2015) were used to further explore strategies that increase uncertainty. The study presents a new framework for the classification of uncertainties in enroute air traffic control and identified the uncertainty management strategies and underlying tactics, in context of contingencies and trade-offs between operational goals. The results showed that controllers, in addition to reducing and acknowledging uncertainty, may deliberately increase uncertainty in order to increase flexibility for other actors in the system to meet their operational goals. The study describes new tactics for acknowledging and increasing uncertainty. The findings were summarized in the air traffic controller complexity and uncertainty management model. Additionally, the results bring to light system design recommendations that allow controllers to follow these different coping strategies, including (1) the design of alerts, (2) the transparency of prediction tools, and (3) system flexibility as a requirement for acknowledging and increasing uncertainty. The results are particularly important as uncertainty is likely to increase in future operations of enroute air traffic control, requiring automation support for controllers. Implications for future air traffic management scenarios as envisioned within the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SESAR JU in European ATM Master Plan, 2 eds, 2012) and NextGen (FAA in FAA’s NextGen implementation plan, 2014) operational concepts are discussed.

Keywords

Uncertainty management Coping with uncertainty Air traffic control Adaptive strategies System design Naturalistic decision-making 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, “ETHIIRA Research Grant”, Project ETH-19-10-3, and was conducted at skyguide, Swiss Air Navigation Services Ltd., Switzerland. This paper represents the interpretation and viewpoint of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official position of skyguide. The authors would like to thank Joost Hamers for his support in facilitating this research and his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Furthermore, we are grateful to the controllers for volunteering in this project by coordinating the observations and allowing us to observe them during their work. We would like to thank Montserrat Mendoza and Yves Le Roux for sharing their knowledge, Claudio di Palma for his operational support, and the supervisors for facilitating our observations in the control rooms. Finally, we are greatly indebted to Tina Lynch for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Athenes S, Averty P, Puechmorel S, Delahaye D, Collet C (2002) ATC complexity and controller workload: trying to bridge the gap. In: Proceedings of HCI–Aero. AAAI, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Averty P, Guittet K, Lezaud P (2008) An ordered logit model of air traffic controllers’ conflict risk judgment. Air Traffic Control Q 16:101–125Google Scholar
  3. Boag C, Neal A, Loft S, Halford GS (2006) An analysis of relational complexity in an air traffic control conflict detection task. Ergonomics 49:1508–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boy G, Grote G (2009) Authority in increasingly complex human and machine collaborative systems: application to the air traffic management evolution. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2009 world congress, IEA, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Boy G, Grote G (2011) The authority issue in organizational automation. In: Goy G (ed) The handbook of human–machine-interaction. Ashgate, London, pp 131–151Google Scholar
  6. Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall D (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91:1189–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen MS, Freeman JT, Wolf S (1996) Meta-recognition in time stressed decision making: recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Hum Factors 38:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corver SC, Aneziris ON (2014) The impact of controller support tools in enroute air traffic control on cognitive error modes: a comparative analysis in two operational environments. Saf Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.018 Google Scholar
  9. Cummings ML, Tsonis CG (2006) Partitioning complexity in air traffic management tasks. Int J Aviat Psychol 16:277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Keyser V, Woods DD (1990) Fixation errors: failures to revise situation assessment in dynamic and risky systems. In: Colombo AG, Saiz de Bustamante A (eds) Systems reliability assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekker SWA, Woods DD (1999) To intervene or not to intervene: the dilemma of management by exception. Cogn Technol Work 1:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Djokic J, Lorenz B, Fricke H (2010) Air traffic control complexity as workload driver. Transp Res Part C 18:930–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FASTI (2006) Operational concept version for HF WP. Edition 1.3, EUROCONTROL HeadquartersGoogle Scholar
  14. FASTI (2008) Real time simulations final report. FASTI RTS WP7 D7 Final Report, EUROCONTROL HeadquartersGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2014) FAA’s NextGen implementation plan. August 2014, Federal aviation administrationGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiore SM, Rosen MA, Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Letsky M, Warner N (2010) Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Hum Factors 52:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flemisch F, Heesen M, Hesse T, Kelsch J, Schieben A, Beller J (2012) Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situation. Cogn Technol Work 14:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grote G (2004) Uncertainty management at the core of system design. Annu Rev Control 28:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grote G (2009) Management of uncertainty—theory and application in the design of systems and organizations. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Grote G (2015) Promoting safety by increasing uncertainty—implications for risk management. Saf Sci 71:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansson O (1996) Decision making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilburn B (2004) Cognitive complexity in air traffic control—a literature review. EEC Note 04/04, Project COCA, EEC Network Capacity and Demand, EurocontrolGoogle Scholar
  23. Histon JM, Hansman RJ, Gottlieb B, Kleinwaks H, Yenson S, Delahaye D, Puechmorel S (2002) Structural considerations and cognitive complexity in air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE/AIAA digital avionics systems conference. IEEE/AIAA, Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoc JM (1996) Supervision et contrôle deprocessus: la cognition en situation dynamique, Process supervision and control: cognition in dynamic situation. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoc J, Carlier X (2002) Role of a common frame of reference in cognitive cooperation: sharing tasks between agents in air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 4:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (1983) Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. Int J Man Mach Stud 18:583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems. Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Imbert J, Hodgetts HM, Parise R, Vachon F, Dehais F, Tremblay S (2014) Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifications. Ergonomics 57:1817–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. International Civil Aviation Organization (2007) Outlook for air transport to the year 2025. Circular 313, ICAOGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirwan B, Flynn M (2002) Investigating air traffic controller conflict resolution strategies (European Air Traffic Management Programme Rep. No.ASA.01.CORA.2.DEL04-B.RS). Eurocontrol, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  32. Klein G, Ross KG, Moon BM, Klein DE, Hoffman RR, Hollnagel E (2003) Macrocognition. IEEE Intell Syst 18:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006a) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21:70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21:88–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein G, Pin CL, Snowdon D (2007) Anticipatory thinking. In: Proceedings of the eighth international NDM conference. Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Knorr D, Walter L (2011) Trajectory uncertainty and the impact on sector complexity and workload. Paper presented at the first SESAR innovation days, Bologna, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.sesarinnovationdays.eu/files/SIDs/SID%202011-04.pdf
  37. Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2009) A proactive approach to human error detection and identification in aviation and air traffic control. Saf Sci 47:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2013) Strategies in coping with complexity: development of a behavioural marker system for air traffic controllers. Saf Sci 57:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee JD, Moray N (1994) Trust, self-confidence and operator’s adaptation to automation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40:153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leroux M (1999) Cognitive aspects and automation. In: Proceedings of the first USA/Europe air traffic management R&D Seminar. Orsay, FranceGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipshitz R, Strauss O (1997) Coping with uncertainty: a naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 69:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lipshitz R, Klein G, Orasanu J, Salas E (2001) Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. J Behav Decis Mak 14:331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lipshitz R, Omodei M, McLennan J, Wearing A (2007) What’s burning? The RAWFS heuristic on the fire ground. In: Hoffman R (ed) Expertise out of context. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mawah, NJ, pp 97–112Google Scholar
  46. Loft S, Sanderson PM, Neal A, Mooij M (2007) Modeling and predicting mental workload in en route air traffic control: critical review and broader implications. Hum Factors 49:376–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mackay WE (1999) Is paper safer? The role of paper flight strips in air traffic control. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 6:311–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malakis S, Kontogiannis T (2013) A sensemaking perspective on framing the mental picture of air traffic controllers. Appl Ergon 44:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malakis S, Kontogiannis T (2014) Exploring team sensemaking in air traffic control (ATC): insights from a field study in low visibility operations. Cogn Technol Work 16:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malakis S, Kontogiannis T, Kirwan B (2010) Managing emergencies and abnormal situations in air traffic control (part I): taskwork strategies. Appl Ergon 41:620–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neal A, Hannah S, Sanderson P, Bolland S, Mooij M, Murphy S (2014) Development and validation of a multilevel model for predicting workload under routine and nonroutine conditions in an air traffic management center. Hum Factors 56:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicholls DB (2001) Managing uncertainty between controllers and pilots—the presentation of uncertain information. CARE innovative action report (C/1.124/HQ/EC/01), EurocontrolGoogle Scholar
  53. Niessen C, Eyferth K (2001) A model of the air traffic controller’s picture. Saf Sci 37:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nunes A, Mogford R (2003) Identifying control strategies that support the ‘picture’. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, vol 47, pp 71–75. doi:  10.1177/154193120304700115
  55. Osman M (2010) Controlling uncertainty: a review of human behaviour in complex dynamic environments. Psychol Bull 136:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parasuraman R, Manzey DH (2010) Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum Factors 52:381–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parasuraman R, Wickens D (2008) Humans: still vital after all these years of automation. Hum Factors 50:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rantanen EM, Nunes A (2005) Hierarchical conflict detection in air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol 15:339–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenholtz R, Li Y, Mansfield J, Jin Z (2005) Feature congestion: a measure of display clutter. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems. Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  60. SESAR Joint Undertaking (SESAR-JU) (2012) European ATM Master Plan, 2 eds. October 2012, SESAR Joint UndertakingGoogle Scholar
  61. Sharples S, Stedmon A, Cox G, Nicholls A, Shuttleworth T, Wilson J (2007) Flightdeck and air traffic control collaboration evaluation (FACE): evaluating aviation communication in the laboratory and field. Appl Ergon 38:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Soraji Y, Furuta K, Kanno T, Aoyama H, Inoue S, Karikawa D, Takahashi M (2012) Cognitive model of team cooperation in en-route air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 14:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Straussberger S, Boy G, Barjou S, Figarol S, Salis F, Debernard S, Le Blaye P (2008) PAUSA for the future—a synthesis of phase 1. Final Report, June 2008, EuriscoGoogle Scholar
  64. Van den Heuvel C, Alison L, Power N (2014) Coping with uncertainty: police strategies for resilient decision making and action implementation. Cogn Technol Work 16:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  66. Xiao Y (2005) Artifacts and collaborative work in healthcare: methodological, theoretical, and technological implications of the tangible. J Biomed Inform 38:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu X, Rantanen EM (2003) Conflict detection in air traffic control: a task analysis, a literature review, and a need for further research. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on aviat psychology. Dayton, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SkyguideWangen bei DübendorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Management, Technology and EconomicsETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations