Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hate to interrupt you, but… analyzing turn-arounds from a cockpit perspective

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

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze aircraft ground operation processes from a human factors perspective with special emphases on the occurrence and influence of interruptions on pilots’ workload. Interruptions have been shown to increase workload and error probability as well as to contribute to fatal accidents in various fields. Countermeasures have been initiated especially in high-risk environments such as those involving medical issues. In aviation, more explicitly during turn-around processes, interruptions might occur frequently and impair flight safety. One hundred and sixty fully certified pilots working for a European airline were observed during their turn-around while performing real operations. Pilots’ interruptions were documented and classified in order to predict subjectively perceived workload by use of multiple linear regression analysis. External factors such as weather conditions, technical problems, and time pressure were considered as covariates. On average, a pilot experienced about eight interruptions during a turn-around. Overall workload estimates showed a level comparable to that of manual flying in a simulator. Interruptions from colleagues or from outside the cockpit were found to predict pilots’ workload; however, further external factors such as poor weather conditions impacted workload even more strongly. We suggest two approaches based on our results to handling the high rate of interruptions. We first recommend procedural changes to diminish the interruption rate; second, we recommend comprehensive, line-oriented flight training for airline and ground staff to raise awareness about the negative influence of interruptions.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ACARS is a digital data link system between an aircraft and other agents on the ground.

  2. ETOPS flight is an extended operation usually flown by a twin-engine aircraft. The airplane has to meet numerous navigational and equipment requirements, which have to be verified prior to departure.

  3. Notice to Airmen comes with the briefing package and contains relevant information necessary for a safe flight, such as information about construction work at the destination airport.

References

  • Airbus SAS (2012) Aircraft characteristics airport and maintenance planning: AC. Blagnac Cedex

  • Armitage G, Knapman H (2003) Adverse events in drug administration: a literature review. J Nurs Manag 11(2):130–140. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2834.2003.00359.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS (2011) A comparison of two methods for reducing take-off delay at London Heathrow airport. J Sched 14(5):409–421. doi:10.1007/s10951-011-0228-y

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey BP, Konstan JA (2006) On the need for attention-aware systems: measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Comput Hum Behav 22(4):685–708. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barshi I (2015) From Healy’s training principles to training specifications: the case of the comprehensive LOFT. Am J Psychol 128(2):219–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barshi I, Loukopoulos L (2012) Training for real world job performance. In: Healy AF, Bourne LE Jr (eds) Training cognition: optimizing efficiency, durability, and generalizability. Psychology Press, New York, pp 287–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett SA, Shaw AP (2003) Incidents and accidents on the ramp: does ‘risk communication’ provide a solution? Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 3(4):333–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyea S (2007) Distractions, interruptions and patient safety. AORN J 86(1):109–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm-Davis DA, Remington R (2009) Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: a cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits of intervention strategies. Accid Anal Prev 41(5):1124–1129. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeing Commercial Airplanes (2013) 737 Airplane characteristics for airport planning. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers JC, Bittner AC, Hill SG (1989) Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Mital A (ed) Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety I. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 481–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Colligan L, Guerlain S, Steck SE, Hoke TR (2012) Designing for distractions: a human factors approach to decreasing interruptions at a centralised medication station. BMJ Qual Saf 21(11):939–947. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins S, Currie L, Bakken S, Cimino JJ (2006) Interruptions during the use of a CPOE system for MICU rounds. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:895

    Google Scholar 

  • Dismukes K, Nowinski J (2006) Prospective memory, concurrent task management, and pilot error. In: Kramer AF, Wiegmann DA, Kirlik A (eds) Attention from theory to practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 225–236

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dorndorf U, Drexl A, Nikulin Y, Pesch E (2007) Flight gate scheduling: state-of-the-art and recent developments. Omega 35(3):326–334. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drees L, Mueller M, Schmidt-Moll C, Gontar P, Zwirglmaier K, Wang C, Straub D (2017) Risk analysis of the EASA minimum fuel requirements considering the ACARE-defined safety target. J Air Transp Manag 65:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebright PR, Patterson ES, Chalko BA, Render ML (2003) Understanding the complexity of registered nurse work in acute care settings. JONA J Nurs Adm 33(12):630–638. doi:10.1097/00005110-200312000-00004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfering A, Grebner S, Ebener C (2015) Workflow interruptions, cognitive failure and near-accidents in health care. Psychol Health Med 20(2):139–147. doi:10.1080/13548506.2014.913796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn EA, Barker KN, Gibson JT, Pearson RE, Berger BA, Smith LA (1999) Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm AJHP 56(13):1319–1325

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricke H, Schultz M (2009) Delay impacts onto turnaround performance: optimal time buffering for minimizing delay propagation. In: Proceedings of the USA/European air traffic management research and development seminar, Napa

  • Fry MM, Dacey C (2007) Factors contributing to incidents in medicine administration. Part 2. Br J Nurs 16(11):676–681. doi:10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller ES (2001) The psychology of safety handbook. Lewis Publ, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillie T, Broadbent D (1989) What makes interruptions disruptive? a study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychol Res 50(4):243–250. doi:10.1007/BF00309260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gontar P, Hoermann H-J (2015) Interrater reliability at the top end: measures of pilots’ nontechnical performance. Int J Aviat Psychol 25(3–4):171–190. doi:10.1080/10508414.2015.1162636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gontar P, Mulligan JB (2016) Cross recurrence analysis as a measure of pilots’ coordination strategy. In: Droog A, Schwarz M, Schmidt R (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the European Association for Aviation Psychology. Groningen, pp 524–544

  • Gontar P, Thoma O, Haslbeck A (2013) Adaption hochgradig geübter psychomotorischer Muster an ungewohnte Simulationsumgebungen am Beispiel von Piloten [Adaptation of highly-trained psycho-motor behavior in unknown simulation environments of pilots]. In: Grandt M, Schmerwitz S (eds) Vol. 2013-01. DGLR-Bericht, Ausbildung und Training in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung. 55. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik, vol. 2013-01. Bonn, pp 169–181

  • Gontar P, Fischer U, Bengler K (2017) Methods to evaluate pilots’ cockpit communication: cross-recurrence analyses vs. speech act-based analyses. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 78(1). doi:10.1177/1555343417715161

  • Gupta A, Li H, Sharda R (2013) Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and perceived workload. Decis Support Syst 55(1):135–145. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D (2006) The influence of human factors on operational efficiency. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 78(1):20–25. doi:10.1108/17488840610639645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslbeck A, Bengler K (2016) Pilots’ gaze strategies and manual control performance using occlusion as a measurement technique during a simulated manual flight task. Cogn Technol Work 18(3):529–540. doi:10.1007/s10111-016-0382-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslbeck A, Hoermann H-J (2016) Flying the needles: flight deck automation erodes fine-motor flying skills among airline pilots. Hum Factors 58(4):533–545. doi:10.1177/0018720816640394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes C, Jackson D, Davidson PM, Power T (2015) Medication errors in hospitals: a literature review of disruptions to nursing practice during medication administration. J Clin Nurs 24(21–22):3063–3076. doi:10.1111/jocn.12944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich RL, Wilhelm JA, Klinect JR, Merritt AC (2001) Culture, error, and crew resource management. In: Salas E, Bowers CA, Edens E (eds) Improving teamwork in organizations: applications of resource management training. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 305–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich RL, Klinect JR, Merritt AC (2004) Line operations safety audit: LOSA data from US airlines. In: Shared vision of aviation safety conference: the current status & future of voluntary flight safety programs, San Diego

  • Ho C-Y, Nikolic MI, Waters MJ, Sarter NB (2004) Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks. Hum Factors 46(3):399–409. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.3.399.50397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohenhaus SM, Powell SM (2008) Distractions and interruptions: development of a healthcare sterile cockpit. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev 8(2):108–110. doi:10.1053/j.nainr.2008.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IATA (2010) IATA economic briefing. Airline fuel and labour cost share. International Air Transport Association. https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/Airline_Labour_Cost_Share_Feb2010.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2017

  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (ed) (2013) Worldwide air transport conference (ATCON) sixth meeting: night flight restrictions, Montreal

  • Kemppainen K, Nieminen J, Vepsäläinen AP (2007) Estimating the costs of airport congestion due to fast connections. J Air Transp Manag 13(4):169–174. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T (2005) Integration of task networks and cognitive user models using coloured Petri nets and its application to job design for safety and productivity. Cogn Technol Work 7(4):241–261. doi:10.1007/s10111-005-0010-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupa P, Bardou N (2013) Late changes before departure. Airbus Saf Mag 16:21–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Latorella KA (1996) Investigating interruptions: an example from the flightdeck. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 40, no 4, pp 249–253

  • Latorella KA (1998) Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: implications for data link. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc 42(1):87–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loukopoulos L, Dismukes R, Barshi I (2001) Cockpit interruptions and distractions: a line observation study. In: Jensen R (ed) Proceedings of the 11th international symposium on aviation psychology, Columbus

  • Loukopoulos L, Dismukes R, Barshi I (2003) Concurrent task demands in the cockpit: challenges and vulnerabilities in routine flight operations. In: Jensen RS (ed) Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on aviation psychology). Wright State University, Dayton, pp 737–742

  • Loukopoulos LD, Dismukes RK, Barshi I (2009) The multitasking myth: handling complexity in real-world operations. Ashgate studies in human factors for flight operations. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark G, Gonzalez VM, Harris J (2005) No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In: van der Veer G, Gale C (eds) Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI. ACM Press, New York, pp 321–330

  • Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In: Czerwinski M, Lund A, Tan D (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 107–110

  • Meister D (1977) Human error in man-machine systems. In: Brown SC, Martin JNT (eds) Human aspects of man-made systems. The Open University Press, London, pp 299–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Merzky S (2014) Ermittlung der Dunkelziffer von aufgetretenen und in Form von Reports gemeldeten Ereignissen während des Flugbetriebs [Analysis of under-reporting in terms of flight reports in flight operations], Diploma thesis. Technical University of Berlin, Berlin

  • Miyata Y, Norman DA (1986) Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In: Norman DA, Draper SW (eds) User centered system design. New perspectives on human–computer interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 265–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan JB, Gontar P (2016) Measuring and modeling shared visual attention. In: Proceedings of the computational and mathematical models in vision workshop (MODVIS), West Lafayette

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2017). ASRS aviation safety reporting system. https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/. Accessed 24 Sep 2017

  • Norin A, Granberg TA, Värbrand P, Yuan D (2009) Integrating optimization and simulation to gain more efficient airport logistics. Napa, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley D (2016) Airlines financial monitor. International Air Transport Association. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/airlines-financial-monitor-jul-16.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2017

  • Padrón S, Guimarans D, Ramos JJ, Fitouri-Trabelsi S (2016) A bi-objective approach for scheduling ground-handling vehicles in airports. Comput Oper Res 71:34–53. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2015.12.010

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pape TM, Guerra DM, Muzquiz M, Bryant JB, Ingram M, Schranner B, Welker J (2005) Innovative approaches to reducing nurses’ distractions during medication administration. J Contin Educ Nurs 36(3):108–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfendler C, Widdel H (1988) Gedächtnisleistung und Beanspruchung bei Wiedererkennen von farbigen und schwarzweißen Reizmustern auf elektronischen Anzeigen: Bericht Nr. 81, Wachtberg

  • Prakash V, Koczmara C, Savage P, Trip K, Stewart J, McCurdie T, Trbovich P (2014) Mitigating errors caused by interruptions during medication verification and administration: interventions in a simulated ambulatory chemotherapy setting. BMJ Qual Saf 23(11):884–892. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J (2009) Human error (20. print). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Relihan E, O’Brien V, O’Hara S, Silke B (2010) The impact of a set of interventions to reduce interruptions and distractions to nurses during medication administration. Qual Saf Health Care 19(5):e52. doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.036871

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (1975) The volunteer subject. Wiley, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Speier C, Valacich JS, Vessey I (1999) The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: an information overload perspective. Decis Sci 30(2):337–360. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01613.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockburger DW (1997) Multivariate statistics: concepts, models, and applications. Missouri State University, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigl M, Müller A, Vincent C, Angerer P, Sevdalis N (2012) The association of workflow interruptions and hospital doctors’ workload: a prospective observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 21(5):399–407. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigl M, Antoniadis S, Chiapponi C, Bruns C, Sevdalis N (2015) The impact of intra-operative interruptions on surgeons’ perceived workload: an observational study in elective general and orthopedic surgery. Surg Endosc 29(1):145–153. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3668-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigl M, Stefan P, Abhari K, Wucherer P, Fallavollita P, Lazarovici M, Catchpole K (2016) Intra-operative disruptions, surgeon’s mental workload, and technical performance in a full-scale simulated procedure. Surg Endosc 30(2):559–566. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4239-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WTM, Day RO (2010) Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med 170(8):683–690. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu C-L, Caves RE (2000) Aircraft operational costs and turnaround efficiency at airports. J Air Transp Manag 6(4):201–208. doi:10.1016/S0969-6997(00)00014-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu C-L, Caves RE (2002) Towards the optimisation of the schedule reliability of aircraft rotations. J Air Transp Manag 8(6):419–426. doi:10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00042-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu C-L, Caves RE (2004) Modelling and optimization of aircraft turnaround time at an airport. Transp Plan Technol 27(1):47–66. doi:10.1080/0308106042000184454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zijlstra FRH, Roe RA, Leonora AB, Krediet I (1999) Temporal factors in mental work: effects of interrupted activities. J Occup Organ Psychol 72(2):163–185. doi:10.1348/096317999166581

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy via the Federal Aeronautical Research Program LuFo IV-2 (20V0803). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of all the participants and furthermore thank the decision makers at the airline, the employees’ union, and the airport who made this study possible. Parts of this work originate from CB’s semester thesis supervised by PG. The authors would like to thank Immanuel Barshi for fruitful discussions about and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We also want to express our gratitude to the authors of the book “The Multitasking Myth”, which greatly inspired our research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748, Garching, Germany

    Patrick Gontar, Sonja Anna Elisabeth Schneider, Celina Bollin & Klaus Bengler

  2. Sonngrub 74, 6370, Kitzbühel, Austria

    Carsten Schmidt-Moll

Authors
  1. Patrick Gontar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonja Anna Elisabeth Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Schmidt-Moll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Celina Bollin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Klaus Bengler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Gontar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gontar, P., Schneider, S.A.E., Schmidt-Moll, C. et al. Hate to interrupt you, but… analyzing turn-arounds from a cockpit perspective. Cogn Tech Work 19, 837–853 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0440-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0440-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation