Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human centered design in the air traffic control system

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A review of the current air traffic control system is undertaken from the perspective of human centered design, focusing on the development of today’s system, the problems in today’s system, and the challenges going forward. Today’s system evolved around the operators in the system (mainly air traffic controllers and pilots), rather than being designed based on specific engineering analyses. This human centered focus has helped make air transportation remarkably safe, but has also made the air traffic control system somewhat inscrutable. This opaqueness of how the system operates poses significant problems for current attempts to transform the system into its “next generation” with significantly improved capacity. Research advances in human centered computing research required in order for this transformation work to proceed are discussed, specifically advances in computing the safety of complex human-integrated systems, understanding and measuring situation awareness, and visualizations of complex data.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barhydt, R., Eischeid, T. M., Palmer, M. T., & Wing, D. J. (2003). Use of a prototype airborne separation assurance system for resolving near-term conflicts during autonomous aircraft operations. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Austin, TX, USA, AIAA.

  • Battiste V., Johnson W. W., Johnson N. H., Granada S., Dao A. (2007) Flight crew perspective on the display of 4D information for en route and arrival merging and spacing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4551: 541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria K. D., Sheth K. S., Lee H. Q., Grabbe S. R. (2003) Performance evaluation of airborne separation assurance for free flight. Air Traffic Control Quarterly 11: 85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooker P. (2005) STCA, TCAS, airproxes and collision risk. Journal of Navigation 58: 389–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civil Aeronautics Board (1957) Accident investigation report, report #SA-320. Washington, DC.: Civil Aeronautics Board

  • Drury, C. G. (1994). Function allocation in manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society’s 1994 Annual Conference. University of Warwick, England, Taylor & Francis.

  • Endsley M. R. (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37: 32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley M.R., Bolté B., Jones D.G. (2003) Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. Taylor & Francis, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Erzberger, H. (2001). The automated airspace concept. 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Santa Fe, NM.

  • Erzberger, H., Davis, T. J., & Green, S. M. (1993). Design of center-TRACON automation system. AGARD Meeting on Machine Intelligence in Air Traffic Management, Berlin, Germany.

  • EUROCONTROL. (2007). Single European Sky ATM Research. EUROCONTROL.

  • Gordon R., Shorrock S. T., Pozzi S., Boschiero A. (2005) Predicting and simulating human errors in using the airborne separation assurance system procedure. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 5: 43

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel D. (2002) Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8: 231–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang S. L., Barfield W., Chang T. C., Salvendy G. (1984) Integration of humans and computers in the operation and control of flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research 22: 841–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson W.W., Battiste V., Holland S. (2000) A cockpit display designed to enable limited flight deck separation responsibility. SAE Transactions Journal of Aerospace 108: 1041–1062

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Planning & Development Office (2004) Next generation air traffic control system integrated plan.Washington, DC.: Joint Planning & Development Office

  • Kaiser B., Gramlich C., Förster M. (2007) State/event fault trees—a safety analysis model for software-controlled systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92: 1521–1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesseler E., Knapen E. G. (2006) Towards human-centred design: Two case studies. Journal of Systems and Software 27: 301–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krozel, J., Peters, M., & Bilimoria, K. (2000). A decentralized control strategy for distributed air/ground traffic separation. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference.

  • Kuchar J. K., Yang L. C., Mit C. (2000) A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods. Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on 1: 179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ljundberg M., Lucas A. (1992) The OASIS air traffic management system, technical report #28. Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozdzanowska, A., Weibel, R., Lester, E., & Hansman, R. J. (2007). The dynamics of air transportation system transition. 2007 Air Traffic Management Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

  • NavCanada. (2003). SASS: Sequencing and Scheduling System, Ottawa.

  • National Transportation Safety Board (2008) US air carrier operations calendar year 2004, report #NTSB/ARC-08/01, annual review of aircraft accident data. Washington, DC.: National Transportation Safety Board

  • Nof S. Y., Knight J. L., Salvendy G. (1980) Effective utilization of industrial robots—a job and skills analysis approach. IIE Transactions 12: 216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papantonopoulos S. A., Salvendy G. (2008) Analytic cognitive task allocation: A decision model for cognitive task allocation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 9: 155–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R., Sheridan T. B., Wickens C. D. (2008) Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 2: 140–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevot T., Homola J., Mercer J. (2008) Human-in-the-loop evaluation of ground-based automated separation assurance for NEXTGEN, 8th AIAA AIrcraft Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. AIAA, Anchorage, Alaska

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert G., Hockey J. (1997) Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology 45: 73–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon P. M., Stanton N. A., Walker G. H., Jenkins D., Baber C., McMaster R. (2008) Representing situation awareness in collaborative systems: A case study in the energy distribution domain. Ergonomics 51: 367–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan T. B. (1998) Allocating functions rationally between humans and machines. Ergonomics in Design 6: 20–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Shappell, S. A., Wiegmann, D. A., Hackworth, C. A., Detwiler, C. A., Holcomb, K. A., & Boquet, A. J. (2006). Human error and commercial aviation accidents: A comprehensive, fine-grained analysis using HFACS, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine. Available to the public through the Defense Technical Information Center; Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service.

  • Spence R. (2007) Information visualization: design for interaction. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijaykumar N. L., Carvalho S. V., Andrade V. M. B., Abdurahiman V. (2006) Introducing probabilities in Statecharts to specify reactive systems for performance analysis. Computers and Operations Research 33: 2369–2386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware C. (2004) Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens C. D., Prevett T. (1995) Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1: 110–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann D.A., Shappell S.A. (2003) A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factors analysis and classification system. Aldershot, Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Steven J. Landry

Authors
  1. Steven J. Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Landry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Landry, S.J. Human centered design in the air traffic control system. J Intell Manuf 22, 65–72 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0278-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0278-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation